1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 2911 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Iron Bounty Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 19).

Committee, report and third reading — 2911

Copper Bounty Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 20). Committee, report and third reading

— 2911

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965

(Bill No. 31). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 2911

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2912

Mr. Smith — 2913

Mr. McGeer — 2913

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2914

Mr. McGeer — 2914

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2915

Mr. Smith — 2915

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2916

Report stage — 2917

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Committee

stage.

Mr. Phillips — 2917

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2918

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2918

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2918

Report stage — 2919

Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 47). Committee, report and

third reading — 2919

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64). Committee stage.

Mr. Gardom — 2919

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2920

Mr. McClelland — 2921

Mr. Schroeder — 2921

Mr. Morrison — 2921

Mr. Gardom — 2922

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2922

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2923

Mr. Williams — 2923

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. Williams — 2923

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. McClelland — 2923

Mr. Gardom — 2924

Mr. Morrison — 2924

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2925

Mr. Morrison — 2925

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2925

Mr. Gardom — 2925

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2926

Mr. Gardom — 2926

Mr. Morrison — 2927

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2927

Mr. McGeer — 2927

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2927

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2927

Mr. Gardom — 2928

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2928

Mr. Morrison — 2928

Mr. Gardom — 2929

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2929

Mr. Gardom — 2930

Mr. Lauk — 2930

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2930

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2931

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2931

Mr. McGeer — 2932

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2932

Report stage — 2932

An Act to Amend the Placer-Mining Act (Bill No. 169).

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2932

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2932

Report and third reading — 2932

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968. Committee, report and

third reading — 2933

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill No. 152).

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2933

Hon. Mr. King — 2933

Mr. Chabot — 2933

Hon. Mr. King — 2933

Report and third reading — 2934

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153). Committee

stage.

Mr. Williams — 2934

Hon. Mr. King — 2934

Mr. Chabot — 2934

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2935

Hon. Mr. King — 2936

Mr. McGeer — 2936

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2937

Mr. Wallace — 2937

Mr. Williams — 2939

Mr. Brousson — 2939

Hon. Mr. King — 2940

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2940

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2942

Mr. Chabot — 2943

Division on motion to report progress — 2944

Mr. McGeer — 2944

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2945

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 37).

Amendment recommitted — 2945

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery tonight five political science students from Evergreen

State College in Olympia, Washington. They are here under the

direction of their instructor, Mr. Matthew E. Smith, and I

would like the Members to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 19, Mr.

Speaker.

IRON BOUNTY ACT REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 19; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 19, Iron Bounty Act Repeal Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines. Do you wish to make

a motion?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's completed!

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry.

Interjections by some Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've had a hard day.

(Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

COPPER BOUNTY ACT

REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 20; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: 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 No. 20, Copper Bounty Act Repeal Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

ACT, 1965

House in committee on Bill No. 31; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

On the amendment to

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): We'll wait and deal with

the

section as amended.

Amendment to

section 1 approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an opportunity to

talk once again about the petroleum industry in the Province of

British Columbia…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2912 ]

MR. SMITH: …in regard to

section 1…(Laughter)…and say a few words about the effect that I feel

section 1 will

have on the petroleum industry in this province.

The net result of the implementation of this

section will be

to increase the royalty on petroleum products, particularly on

crude oil. The increase, as compared to the previous rate of

royalty, will go from a low of 5 per cent and a high of 16.5

per cent to a low of 10 per cent and a high of 40 per cent. But

the average increase will be better than double what it was

before in the petroleum industry. I hear some of the

backbenchers applauding that.

Because they are uninformed about the exploration for

petroleum and petroleum resources in the province, I suppose

they feel they have reason to applaud, because this increase in

royalty will put British Columbia in the position of having the

highest royalty on crude oil production in all of Canada. They

are also applauding that.

I suppose if we were in a position that we didn't have to

consider, or take any recognition of the fact that we still

want the petroleum industry to explore for crude oil in the

Province of British Columbia, you could applaud that. You could

take the position that we are going to gouge the industry for

every dollar that we can get and it will have no effect, except

that it will increase the amount of revenue into the provincial

coffers.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this: by

increasing the royalty on petroleum and the exploration for

crude oil in this province to the extent that you have done in

this bill, you will, over a period of the next two years, drive

the exploration business out of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that the matter of increase in royalties is the

principle of the bill and was discussed during second reading.

I would ask him to confine his statements to

section 1.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I'm certainly confining my remarks, Mr.

Chairman, to this

section of the bill which increases the

royalty by more than 150 per cent — 200 per cent on most

of the petroleum exploration and production in the Province of

British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is the principle of the

bill, I would point out.

MR. SMITH: That is contained in

section 1, Mr. Chairman. The

increase in royalties. That is the matter I am speaking

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the matter you are discussing was discussed

under second reading.

MR. SMITH: If you would allow me an opportunity, Mr.

Chairman, I'll relate my remarks to

section 1 as it affects the

exploration; not only the exploration, but the actual effect

that this

section will have on the provincial coffers in

British Columbia. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that while

this

section is designed to pick up additional revenue in

royalties for the Province of British Columbia, you will lose

better than twice that amount from exploration in the

province.

That's exactly what's going to happen. You may pick up $10

million a year here, and you'll lose $20 million a year from

the business of leases and exploration permits in the Province

of British Columbia.

If that's good business then the NDP certainly don't know

the economics of the petroleum industry or anything else in the

Province of British Columbia.

A reasonable increase would have been acceptable to the

petroleum industry. But at a time when we're faced with an

energy shortage in the whole western hemisphere, you have

decided to go after the last buck right now and gouge the

industry. Basically it's not going to affect the ones who are

producing. But it will have an effect, all right. They'll still

produce oil; they'll still pay that royalty. But the net effect

of this will be to kill the exploration industry in the

Province of British Columbia. Instead of finding new oil pools

and new discoveries, they're going to look somewhere else

— in some other part of Canada.

We have no licence, we have no exclusive rights on petroleum

in the Province of British Columbia.

Certainly, as compared to other parts of Canada, including

the Province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in the

Mackenzie Delta, the rate of discovery here is far less. And

the rate of return, in relation to what it costs to drill, is

far less.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this House tonight

that you've taken too big a bite, without consultation, without

really looking at the overall effect. This bill and this

section of the bill really will have the same net result as

many other bills that came before the House this session. You

may be able to look with great glee and pleasure upon what

you've done on a temporary basis, But over a period of the next

few years, even the next two years, you will find that the

imposts recommended in this

section of the bill will have

resulted in the withdrawal of exploration for crude oil in the

Province of British Columbia, and that's a sorry day for all of

us, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I am deeply hurt by the Hon.

Member's remarks because he didn't

[ Page 2913 ]

tell us about the incentives we got in there. All he was

speaking about was the crude oil wells that have been in

operation for a long time and have been paid back a good many

times. But we have incentives in here and I see no reason why

they shouldn't pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: O.K. We'll talk about the incentives, so called.

It's in subsection 2.

The incentive that you have suggested with respect to new

discovery wells in new areas is no incentive at all. All it

does is defer the royalty that would have been paid in a new

discovery area, if and when that new discovery area is found,

for a period of three years. Then the royalty that the Crown

has imposed by this bill will come into full force and

effect.

It makes no provision to offset the money that's spent in

exploration by those companies that are unsuccessful. It gives

no credit to the companies that do find a well, in relation to

the number of dry holes that they may have drilled before they

found that particular discovery.

In effect, it will not affect the petroleum industry at all,

as far as exploration is concerned. It will have no effect on

increasing exploration in the Province of British Columbia,

because the money that is required to finance exploration is

borrowed money — it comes in from the financial

institutions in Canada. And the thing that they are most

concerned about when they lend these millions of dollars to the

petroleum companies that will be in the exploration end of the

business, and are in the exploration end of the business in

British Columbia, is that somewhere down the line they have a

return on the money that they lent them, including principal

and interest.

That money, and the source of that money, under this type of

an incentive, will dry up, because it is not an incentive. The

payout will still be required to be made by the petroleum

industry, the incentive that you suggested is in this

particular

section of the bill is really not a true incentive

at all. It makes no provision for the unsuccessful operators or

unsuccessful drillers, as compared to the ones who finally find

a well.

The net result will be that the petroleum industry, when

exploring for crude oil in British Columbia, will confine their

activities to the areas where they have reason to believe they

have greatest chance of success. They'll not do the step-outs

that they've been involved in in the past. They'll not explore

into the new areas of the province where there may be another

Leduc, because it's too costly and the risk is too great.

For the Minister to suggest that that is an incentive that will attract the

petroleum industry and retain them in the province is pure speculation — it's

pure nonsense. It will have no effect in that respect at all. If you want to

really entice the exploration end of the industry to go into new areas to explore,

then you should set up an incentive similar to that which is available in the

Province of Alberta, where not only the people who drill a successful well but

those who drill a number of dry holes have part of that cost of drilling written

off against the first few years of royalty that would have been collected by

the province. To me, Mr. Chairman, it's a sensible way of approaching an industry

that is very vital to the economy of north-eastern British Columbia.

Certainly, had the Minister asked or really accepted the

advice of the industry as expressed through their association,

he would have seen the wisdom of what they were saying. I'm

afraid that the thing that we're going to be faced with in this

province is that because of an unrelenting attitude by the

present government, we will effectively stifle the industry in

this province, and the government will lose revenue because of

that, we'll lose jobs because of that and we'll all be sorry as

a result of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

I just rise briefly in support of the Member for North Peace

River, who has spent many, many years in close association with

the petroleum industry.

I say that because I've taken the trouble to enquire of the

people in that particular area who will be directly affected by

this particular legislation. I think the Member is absolutely

correct. He has more experience in this field than anybody in

the House. Furthermore, he comes from the area which will be

directly affected by the Minister.

I was disappointed that the Minister in introducing this

bill had obtained so little data, either from the industry or

in the field, regarding the consequences of this particular

bill. We heard Members of the NDP, when they were in

opposition, railing against the petroleum industry and the

supposed bloated profits that these firms were making. At the

time the NDP made these opposition speeches, they were not

informed opposition Members. They had not taken the trouble,

Mr. Chairman, to check into the operation of this industry.

Their speeches were as irresponsible then as their actions are

today in government.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and his cabinet harboured deep

prejudices against supposed industrial people who are raking

British Columbia off, when in fact what they are doing is

attempting to develop our resources in partnership with

government and with the people of British Columbia.

These Members, Mr. Chairman, do not understand the northern

part of this country. They do not

[ Page 2914 ]

understand the fact that this province is almost divided;

that we need to have one set of policies for northern British

Columbia which will encourage the development and harvesting of

our resources, and another set of policies for southern British

Columbia which will encourage manufacturing and the processing

of these resources. And what the NDP government is doing with a

series of bills which they are bringing in — this bill

being a prime example — is to strangle the northern part

of this province.

Mr. Chairman, it's ignorance and it's irresponsibility. The

people who will be most hurt by this legislation are the people

whom the NDP government has pledged to assist, namely the

workers of the province who want only jobs, security and an

opportunity for a day's wages for a day's work.

Mr. Chairman, this is being cut off, I say, by ignorance, by

irresponsibility, none better illustrated than the failure of

that Minister to understand what he has done, and by the

failure of the Premier and the other fat cats in the cabinet,

who wouldn't be seen dead, Mr. Chairman, doing a day's work in

northern British Columbia, to pay an on-site visit to the area.

I condemn the philosophy of the government, the ignorance of

the Premier and the Minister.

I call upon them to heed the advice given in a responsible

way by the Member for North Peace River, to permit the northern

part of British Columbia to develop in the way that it can by

withdrawing this kind of punitive and irresponsible legislation

and by permitting the resources of northern British Columbia to

be developed in the only way that they can.

Many people have been welcoming the social legislation

introduced by the NDP government and no one, I think, has paid

better compliments to the NDP in this regard than I have. But

there is another side to this coin. At this particular time, we

do not need the rather trivial revenues that this kind of

legislation will bring in. What we do need badly, Mr. Chairman,

is an expansion of the economy in northern British

Columbia.

It's hard work. It's high risk. It's tough going. All of

these things will only be undertaken if there is encouragement

on the part of government and if there is understanding. It

isn't just the people who are risking and undertaking a very

high risk with their capital; it's the people who have

committed their lives or a good part of their lives to working

in that tough country to see northern British Columbia

harnessed and developed for the good of all of the people.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation undercuts most of those British Columbia workers

who have made this commitment. This particular bill is a sorry day for them.

Just once more, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the government to listen to what that

Member has to say and retract this legislation and all of those policies for

northern British Columbia that they have introduced to date before they do any

more damage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that

after dinner the Member for West Point Grey who's concerned

about the North has put on his….

MR. McGEER: Vancouver–Point Grey. May I just, Mr.

Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of

order?

MR. McGEER: It's Vancouver–Point Grey and I'd

appreciate it….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vancouver–Point Grey with all its

oil wells, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Just get down all the various ridings in the

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is made; would the Hon. Member be

seated?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey with all its oil

wells has put on his running shoes with the little caption on

the side, "We hurry." Tonight we've had a little speech from

Standard Oil of New Jersey by way of Point Grey. It's

interesting that we hear this great plea for the international

oil cartels on behalf of the man running out in his sneakers

saying, "You're ruining the north."

There's only ten years of proven oil reserves left in the

north. The north has been creamed by the international oil

cartels all these years. We're bringing in legislation, lo and

behold, that's a little bit higher than what the Tories have

brought in in Alberta. The Conservative government of Alberta

found that after they came into power, shortly after the Social

Credit administration had lived so long off the minuscule

returns from the oil in the Province of Alberta, that they were

forced because of deficits in their budgets to increase the

royalty on oil in Alberta.

Now I find that the spokesman for the oil industry and the

international oil cartels is none other than that right-winger

of the right-wingers, the Member from West Point Grey. You

know, Mr. Chairman, he said tonight that the workers only want

a day's wages….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, You have a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Vancouver–Point Grey is the

[ Page 2915 ]

riding….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vancouver–Point Grey. Would the Member

be seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vancouver–Point Grey and all its oil

wells. Mr. Chairman, he said tonight that the workers only want

a day's wages and a day's work. That's all he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order?

MR. McGEER: Could I point out to the Premier that there are

no oil wells in Vancouver–Point Grey?

HON. MR. BARRETT: But you're sure lubricated tonight.

(Laughter). You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that

he said that….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Withdraw, withdraw!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't interrupt him when he was

speaking. I withdraw.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find that they find it necessary

to interrupt. After he had his say tonight about the oil wells,

he said also, "The workers only want a day's wages and a day's

work." What do you think the workers are in this province? A

day's work and a day's wages — that went out a long time

ago, Mr. Chairman, a long time ago.

What they want is a place in the sun, not only for

themselves but for their children and their children's

children. A day's work and a day's wages was a good slogan for

the Liberal Party 30 years ago when they gave away the

resources of this province — but when you've got a

government for the first time protecting the resources, that

Member resorts to old clichés and old slogans.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Lots of unemployment. And the federal

Liberal government has done absolutely nothing about that, Mr.

Member, absolutely nothing. Except that the federal Liberal

government has learned that the loss of control of resources

has been a factor in why we have unemployment, and the federal

Liberal government set up the Pan-Arctic Corporation which will

allow the Canadian people for the first time to have a share in

the development of their resources. And they learned.

But that Liberal Member, through you Mr. Chairman, hasn't

learned a single thing. He wants the outsiders to come in and

do the drilling. Do you think that they're the United Appeal,

Mr. Chairman? Do you think that they come in with their

charitable dollars to grant gifts to those "daily workers"?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life I was. Mr. Chairman, we

say that when Venezuela can get 50-50 on their oil resources,

what's wrong with British Columbia getting 30 or 40 to 60 or 70

on their resources? Those Venezuelan oil companies said to

every outside oil driller that it's 50-50 or nothing. The

Liberals have yet to learn that half a loaf is better than

nothing, but the oil companies know it is. They'll live with

this.

Now my friend talks about the oil crisis and he makes a big

song and dance about the fact that they may not be drilling in

British Columbia. The oil reserves in North America are

depleting every day. Whether it was the NDP or anyone else, it

would be criminal in my opinion not to get a fair share for the

people of British Columbia, and that's exactly what this

Minister is trying to do with this particular bill.

I've enjoyed this whole session; but no more than on the

debates like this, because we get a classic slice of what has

gone on in this province year after year after year. The

crying, the bleating, the pleading for the international

cartels that have looked upon this province as a happy hunting

ground. Well, this bill is not going to eliminate the happy

hunting ground; all we're saying is that we want to share and

that Minister is asking for a fair share.

That's what the election campaign was all about. That's why

you dropped from 19 to 16 per cent. You go out and tell the

north, and we'll go out and tell the north.

Mr. Chairman, 40 per cent is a fair share and many areas say

it should be more; but 40 is all we're asking for and anybody

that is reasonable will accept this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 as amended pass?

Section 1 approved with amendment.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have an indication

that the present government does not consider it within the

bounds of good government to continue with agreements that have

been authorized and set into force by a previous

administration. The petroleum industry negotiated agreements

with respect to the pooling of the royalty upon certain fields

in the province on a pooled basis. They had every reason to

believe that the agreements that were negotiated would be in

full force and effect until 1975. But by this

section the

government has

[ Page 2916 ]

emasculated those agreements, and has indicated to the

petroleum industry, loud and clear, that they will all be

renegotiated on the basis of the higher royalty.

Now, this is the type of manoeuvre by the government that

places you, as government, in serious jeopardy with respect to

the continuation of the petroleum industry in the Province of

British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No more Premier!

MR. SMITH: I'd like to quote from an

article that appeared

in one of the newspapers on March 3, 1973, and the comment

comes from the Victoria Daily Colonist . It's a comment made by

the then President of the Canadian Petroleum Association, B.C.

division:

"The proposed legislation enabling the massive oil royalty

increase raises severe doubts as to whether past or future

investors have any prospect of return or, in fact, the

opportunity to recover their investment.

"Moreover, the manner in which the government proposes to

carry out these changes raises questions as to the sanctity of

any agreement now or hereafter made with the government of the

province."

Mr. MacIntosh goes on to say that the agreements are in

effect in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that they

have five-year agreements there which they had reason to

believe would be honoured in the Province of British Columbia

and that the agreements in force would not become subject to

renegotiation before 1975.

So what you have said to the petroleum industry with this

section of the Act is that no agreement made in good faith will

be recognized by the Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources or the government of this province, and that you are

prepared on any whim to step in and cancel previous agreements.

We've seen the same attitude adopted by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to

TFLs (tree farm licences). We see it right here in a new

statute that's being proposed for the Province of British

Columbia.

I have heard the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

many times in this House, when he was in opposition, stand in his place and

rail against injustices, changes that he felt were being forced upon the people

by the then government of this province. Yet he is quite prepared to go along

with a statute or an amendment to a statute which will allow him to renegotiate

all the agreements with respect to the collection of royalty in this province

— agreements which were negotiated in good faith, agreements which the petroleum

industry were prepared to live up to, agreements which they now find are null

and void at the whim of a Minister and his department.

Is it any wonder that the petroleum industry is presently

looking at British Columbia with a jaundiced eye? They know

that as long as the present government is in power here

whatever may be said presently, or negotiations and agreements

that are agreed to right now, will have no force and effect six

months, a year, or two years down the line.

This is why the government is losing the confidence of the

business sector of this province and those people who would, if

given a fair opportunity, not only invest in this province but

support our economy with jobs, with new industry, with an

increasing programme because of the situation in the petroleum

industry with respect to supply. The Minister with these two

Sections is prepared to throw that whole programme right out

the window.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that jobs will be lost, that the

industry has no faith in this government because of the fact

that they cannot depend upon them to hold up agreements and

honour agreements that have been drawn and negotiated in good

faith, and that we will see a decrease in the revenue from

petroleum industry at a time when it should be increasing.

Because the potential for exploration is still average as

compared to many other parts of Canada. It is greater than some

parts because there is no oil there to be discovered — at

least no one has found it. Yet the Minister, through this

section, has indicated to the petroleum industry that even the

agreements that they had placed in effect will not be honoured

by this government.

It is going to result in decreased employment, decreased

exploration activity and decreased revenue to the province.

We're all going to be sorry for that fact happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but reply to

the Hon. Member in regard to speaking about agreements that

were made in good faith. I am rather proud of this

section

because I don't think that those agreements are made in good

faith with the people of British Columbia.

Forty-six per cent of the production of our oil was made

under agreements that allowed the companies the same rate of

taxation until the well runs dry. At no time, if it lasted 50

years….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Do you mean to tell me that if those wells

lasted 50 years from now we should still be just collecting 5

per cent to 16 2/3 per cent on them? Mr. Brothers, when he was

Minister of

[ Page 2917 ]

Mines, signed those agreements, and I think it was an

injustice against the people of British Columbia. This is what

I'm thinking of — the injustice that was done to the

people of British Columbia. What we're doing now is to correct

that injustice that was done to the people of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

On proposed

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment that provides a

section 3

pass?

Amendment approved.

Title approved.

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

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 31,

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural

Gas Act, 1965 , reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: De la loi quarante-quatre, Monsieur

Forateur.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quarante-quatre.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, my gosh. I wonder if the Hon. Premier would

say that in French. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Ah, oui.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't like my French, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: Eh bien!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You should

introduce the next bill in Gaelic. (Laughter).

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINERAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 44; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

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

going to say very much on

section 3 tonight, other than to say

that the opposition has taken a very, very firm stand on Bill

44. This

section tonight, when the government uses its usual

steamroller tactics….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, here we go again!

MR. PHILLIPS: It's bulldozer tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: They will shove this through in their usual

manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ramrod is the word.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the bells will ring out the death knell

for the mining industry in British Columbia. The industry that

provides 25 cents out of every dollar that moves in British

Columbia….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This doesn't deal with that; this deals

with….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes it does! This is the free miner's

certificate — don't find any minerals. Mr. Minister, you

know very well this is the

section that you put in this Act

that kills the mining industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I was just making it Canadian.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we have to

pump taxpayers' money into industries that are dying on their

feet, while we're killing jobs by Bill 44. This government will

shove it through — they'll ram it through. They'll ramrod

it all right. You'd better believe they'll ramrod it, and

they'll be sorry. But we'll look back in the record.

[ Page 2918 ]

We've spent enough time advising the Minister that he should

go home, that he should resign, that he isn't qualified to be

Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't be so unkind. Leave me in here a

little while.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister has got the skin of a rhinoceros.

It doesn't get through to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member continue

with

section 3?

MR. PHILLIPS: We are opposed to this section. Very firmly we

are opposed to it. We'll be here next year, and we'll tell you

how many jobs you've lost, Mr. Minister of Mines, because of

this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You were getting a little too speedy

there, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, in

section 4(2)(b)(ii) where

it says, "not a Canadian citizen, but who has not, at the date

he applies for, or applies to renew, a free miner's certificate… " et cetera — it implies to me that it is

exclusionary in rather than permitting a person who has lived

in Canada for more than eight years, it says he should not be.

And I wondered if there is some amendment necessary there. It

seems that you exclude people who are not Canadian citizens,

and who have lived in Canada for eight years. Am I right in my

interpretation, Mr. Minister, or not?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is to cover landed immigrants who are

here up to eight years. Not more than eight years. We feel that

by that time a person has time enough to decide whether he

wants to become a Canadian citizen or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 18 inclusive approved with amendments.

section 19.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A quick question to the Minister

involving

section 19 and subsequent sections. Is "rental

payment, prescribed annual rental fee…" and it goes on to

"prescribed rental…" et cetera — are these all the same thing?

You use a different term in each case, and I wondered if they

were all the same thing. I think they are, but I wondered

whether you would comment upon it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You mean on the…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, "rental payment" is in

section 19.

In 21(51)(1)(a), you have "…pay the prescribed annual rental

fee."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They are all the same thing, eh?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. They go on. There are a few other

variations on this particular theme, and I think you might get

your lawyers to straighten it out and use one term

throughout.

Sections 19 and 20 approved with amendment.

section 21.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing on the order paper in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In this

section 21(51)(3)(b), that's on

p. 6, a third of the way down. You have "anniversary year." Now

we have celebrated many anniversaries in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The amendment knocks out the

"anniversary."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I was unable to

find the amendment.

Sections 21 to 46 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2919 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 44,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act ,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Committee on Bill

No. 47, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL PROPERTY TAXATION ACT

REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 47; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 47, Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Committee on Bill No. 64, Mr.

Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 64; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

I have a number of comments to make concerning this bill, and I

have sent over, a little earlier this evening, copies to the

Hon. Minister of certain amendments that I will be proposing,

which are about five in number.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've lost them, Garde.

MR. GARDOM: Have you lost them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yeah.

MR. GARDOM: Oh.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Here they are.

MR. GARDOM: Have you got them? I can get a copy made for

you. Have you found them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yeah.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: They were in the bottom of the well, were they?

That's the stuff.

I'm afraid we find in this bill a number of legislative

imperfections and I would like to draw the Hon. Minister's

attention to some of them.

First of all, in the definition of mineral which we find

under

section 1, Mr. Chairman, it literally includes every

mineral in land, exclusive of quantity and exclusive of

quality.

Then we get into the definition next of mineral land, and it

means land other than Crown land; so it means all private land

in the province.

The third item that gives me great concern is the definition

of owner, which is too restrictive and too definitive. The

assessment that I would gainsay myself out of reading this is

that it might have been the intention of the bill only to get

to the early Crown grants, but this is not what the bill says

and it's all-inclusive.

An owner, under the

definitions of this bill, Mr. Chairman,

may not have any right to a mineral at all, absolutely no right

to a mineral at all. But he may be still subject to a tax

which, apart from being taxation without representation, is

taxation without any right whatsoever.

In summation, the literal

interpretation of the bill, and I

think the

interpretation that any court in the land would give

the bill, is that you'll be taxing owners. You have the right

to determine, and arbitrarily determine, exactly who an owner

is. I would say that your bill extends to all owners of land

and it will particularly and adversely affect farmers and

ranchers and holders of timberland.

To utilize the

definitions that you've given under the bill,

because they're so broad and so encompassing, they would

include the land of any city lot in Vancouver, Victoria, New

Westminster, Burnaby or what have you. Now this surely must be

well beyond its original intent, and I'd like to make the

following comments.

The definition of mineral land is far too broad. As it now

reads under your statute, Mr. Minister, mineral lands will

comprise all land other than Crown land in the province.

Now, for example, if there is a mineral situate in a parcel

of land, then that land can become mineral land. But there are

minerals, in the broad sense, in every parcel of land in the

Province of B.C. If it's intended under your Act — you

certainly haven't

[ Page 2920 ]

spelled it out — that the minerals that you wish to

fall within the purview of the Act are only those that are

economically recoverable, then the definition of mineral that

you have must be revised. Unfortunately, I do not have the

expertise to revise that, but I mention it to you because

you've gone the whole way and have included as a definition of

mineral and mineral land every single solitary two-foot block

of earth in the Province of B.C.

The Minister laughs and says, "My God, did I do that?" You

did. Your first time out but you never meant to go that far.

But you have gone that far. It may well be, Mr. Minister, that

the draftsman or you intended that mineral land would be only

those lands that were Crown-granted before 1897, when the

minerals at that time were not reserved to the Crown but would

pass to the owner of the fee simple. If this is the case, what

you have here will be discriminatory legislation, if the owner

of the earlier Crown-granted land does not intend to develop or

utilize the minerals that may or may not be on his land.

It is also to be noted, Mr. Minister, that if a person owns

land and a free miner stakes a mineral claim upon that land,

then the free miner has the right to work and carry away those

minerals. As a result of actions well beyond the control of the

owner and completely without his acquiescence, the owner of

that land can have his land designated — your term

— as mineral land — your definition — under

subsection 1(2).

The owner of that mineral land will be responsible for

mineral land taxes. His land can become subject to forfeiture

if they're not paid. Yet he has no interest at all in the

minerals.

So you see it's a ludicrous situation. As I've said, You've

got taxation not only without representation, but taxation

without any benefit. I would say that if nothing else, the way

this Act is drawn right now, the only bonanza I can see in it

will be for mining lawyers to go ahead and try to interpret it

and cover it by contract.

Still under this

section 1 in your

definitions, if a person

owns the land subject to a Crown-granted mineral claim, which

would be registered as an encumbrance on the reverse of his

certificate of title then, notwithstanding the fact that he

hasn't any right to the minerals, his land could be classified

as mineral land and subject to tax. It's gone far, far, too

far. You never intended to go that far.

The definition of "owner" that you have is all-inclusive.

They should more precisely relate to persons who are shown on

your mineral land tax roll. Is the Minister with me? I guess

he's not. Is he? Good. It's not really the most sparkling

stuff. I have to agree with you there. I'm the first to admit

that. (Laughter). However, I'm doing my duty.

The owner may not be the holder of these rights to remove minerals

and so he should not be classified as an owner and subjected to tax.

There's one other item here. In the safeguards of the interests of this

owner, surely to goodness at least he should have the right to claim

over against a holder of the mineral rights for unpaid taxes. Because

that's the individual who can produce the unpaid-tax situation.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman — and you have the motion in front of you — I

would move to change the definition of owner as it now stands under the

Act.

It reads now: " 'Owner' includes a person who has the right

to work, win" — whatever that means — "or carry

away minerals from any mineral land." We would alter that

definition to read: " ‘Owner' includes a person who

has the right to work, win or carry away minerals from any

mineral land and who is shown as owner on the mineral land tax

roll." At least go ahead and make sure that you've got an owner

on the tax roll before you clobber him with taxes. You have the

right here to clobber people who are not the owners, but in the

final analysis end up with the owner and make him pay.

I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, he asked questions and then

he answered his own questions. That's typical of the law

fraternity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Having lived with my son for quite a

while, I know what it is.

The owner here is "a person who has the right to work, win

or carry away minerals." You made a statement that the owner of

any land could be taxed. This is the owner of the mineral

rights, Because we've got lots of people in the province who

own the mineral rights but don't own the surface rights.

MR. GARDOM: It doesn't say that. Read it out loud.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the definition of an owner.

"Includes a person who has the right to work, win or carry away

minerals." Now, if you don't own the mineral rights, you can't

carry away the minerals, Therefore, it's in there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: It was touch and go, Mr. Chairman.

(Laughter),

[ Page 2921 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just briefly.

Section 2 seems to me to be another of these areas in which

government treats with a very cavalier attitude legitimate

contracts signed by anyone. This government has no conception

of what a contract is all about.

Section 2 in this Act seems to

me to be sort of a backhanded way of breaking contracts.

Certainly the investor is the loser in all of these

sections, Mr. Chairman. The reason for the chill in the air

with regard to investors in this industry is not hard to

understand when you read a

section like this. In effect, it

permits the government to designate production areas over land

which, one way or another, has been the subject of a contract

at one time, and usually a long-standing contract. Yet this

government will come along and just break the contract and

designate the area.

Because of that, Mr. Chairman, once again the official

opposition cannot go along with this kind of legislation. We

sincerely wish that the government opposite would finally get

it in its head that a contract is a contract and it cannot or

should not be broken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Just a little fun thing

here for after dinner. There are going to be one, two, three,

four, five — five categories of owners that are going to

be exempt from tax and that are not covered by the

Interpretation Act as I see it.

First of all, there is one of these categories in between

(

a) and (b). If I happen to own exactly 50,000 acres then I

would be exempt from tax. If I happened to own 100,000 acres I

would be exempt from tax. If I owned exactly 500,000 acres or 1

million acres I would be exempt from tax according to the

Interpretation Act.

Now I would move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that

the government pays more attention to the sponsor of an amendment than

the good sense of the amendment. Therefore, since I run the risk of

being turned down by virtue of the fact that it is being sponsored by

the Social Credit Party, I would like to leave it with the Minister of

Mines to change the wording in subsection (

b) to read, rather than,

"where his total mineral land comprises more than 50,000…" it should

read, "where his total mineral land comprises 50,000 acres or more, but

less than 100,000."

In subsection (

e) it should read, "where his total mineral

land comprises 100,000 acres or more, but less than 250,000."

Do you see it there, Leo? Pardon me, the Hon. Minister of

Mines. You see it there, do you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think you'd get away with it.

MR. SCHROEDER: You look at the

Interpretation Act . I

think if you and I were on opposite sides of the fence I think

I'd win the case. Just a good, jolly suggestion for a jolly

gentleman. Bless you, son. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

refer to

section 4 but since

section 4 and 5 have some

similarities in them, I'd like to just read this because even I

find it a little complicated.

"It appears that there is a different tax provided in the

case of designated mineral land situated within a production

area. For this mineral land, the rate of tax is $2 per acre

plus a mill rate, according to the Act, of an amount not

exceeding 25 mills on each dollar of the assessment. That is 2

1/2 percentage points of the value of the designated mineral

land. This higher tax for designated mineral land situated

within a production area would not be in addition to the lower

tax rate; that is, the tax rate provided in clause 4 of between

25 cents and $1 per acre. The apparent intent of clauses 4 and

5 is, under clause 4, to tax such mineral lands as have no

apparent present economic value and to tax at a higher rate

under clause 5 those mineral lands that are either being

exploited or have a present economic value.

"However, under the definition section, designated mineral

land means, 'land that is designated by order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.'

"To sum it up, this puts in the hands of the government the

power to designate any mineral lands to be subject to clause 5

rather than clause 4. Clause 5 of the bill provides that the

mineral rate shall be at a rate not exceeding 25 mills. In

other words, the rate of tax on designated mineral land will be

completely at the discretion of the government, subject to the

overall limit of 25 mills. "

[ Page 2922 ]

What I'm trying to say is that I had a hard time trying to

figure that out. How does the assessor decide?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) made

an absolutely correct and an absolutely valid point. The Act is

not properly drawn.

Now it is a very simple thing you do. You've just got to put

in the words "or more" and take out the words, "more than." For

goodness sakes, accept his amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't make an amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll do it.

MR. GARDOM: Now you're looking at

section 4(b). Well, he's

going to do it right now. There's the form; there he goes.

Now, what the Hon. Member for Chilliwack is going to say is

this. (Laughter). Under (

b) where his total mineral land

comprises 50,000 acres or more — that's right. And then

carrying on the same thing in (c). So you take out the words,

"more than" in the first line of (

b) and substitute after

"acres" in the second line of (

b) the words "or more." Then do

exactly the same thing in (c), exactly the same thing in (

d) and exactly the same thing in (e).

The Member has proposed a perfectly valid, perfectly correct

premise here. He's writing out the amendment and is the Hon.

Minister prepared to accept his amendment?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I agree.

MR. GARDOM: Good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll dispose of this other

matter first.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't make an amendment before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm recognizing the Hon. Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey at this particular point. And

then I'll recognize the Member for Victoria.

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes. But the Hon. Member for Chilliwack is

going to move this. But just so that there is not any

uncertainty, it would cover the amendment in (b), (c), (

d) and

(e)…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. GARDOM: …Mr. Minister, by deleting in the first line

in each of those sections the two words "more than" and

by substituting after the word "acres" in the second….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I was. I lived in the Fraser Valley for the

better part of 12 years.

After the word "acres" in each case, the words, "or more."

So you'll find that going in sections 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and

4(e). I certainly support the Hon. Member for Chilliwack's

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll dispose of the amendments proposed by

the Hon, Member for Chilliwack before we recognize the Member

for Victoria.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the purport of the amendments is

understood.

MR. SCHROEDER: I so move, Mr. Chairman. With leave of the

House — the advisory over there….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You do not require leave of the

House. You may propose an amendment. Shall the amendment

standing in the name of the Member for Chilliwack pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 4 approved with amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was wondering about the problem of associated companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 5?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, 4. There seems to be no way here of

separating companies which may want to split themselves up to

avoid tax. You have taxes of up to $1 million if they have over

1 million acres of land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A million acres.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. They have $1 million of tax if they

have I million acres. Right? O.K.

Now what happens if they decide to split the thing up under

associated but separate companies? Is that covered in your Act,

Mr. Minister?

[ Page 2923 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, if the one company owns a million

acres of mineral rights in the Province of British Columbia,

they would be taxed accordingly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At the present time one company may own a

million acres and thus be subject to $1 million a year tax. But

they say, "This is ridiculous." They split themselves up into

five, six or seven smaller companies, all of which are

associated and perhaps have the same board of directors. They

might avoid your tax. You wouldn't want that, would you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If they get a good lawyer and do that, I

guess we can't do anything about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure you can. You certainly could if you

wished. I just wonder whether you intend to.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You'd have to make sure that they were all

owned by the same people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm told by my friend that it might kill

his business so I'll leave it with you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound on

section 5. We've disposed of

section 4.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. Would the Minister indicate how he will

resolve the problem that faces those people who are in the

ranching industry and who, by reason of the age of the title to

their lands, have certain mineral rights as part of their

title?

The consequences of this

section would be that upon

designation, even though those lands are to be used in

perpetuity for ranching purposes, they'd be subject to tax. If

they release their right to minerals, then of course they are

at the whim of people who may wish to prospect. Suddenly the

ranchland becomes mining property and therefore no longer

usable for the grazing of cattle. You could scarcely graze

cattle in an open-pit mine.

Many of these ranchers desire to retain their properties as

they are to preclude any development of a mine for fear of

losing the surface rights, and yet in so doing they find

themselves subjected to this tax when they don't intend to mine

at all. Would the Minister indicate what relief there may be

for people who find themselves in this situation?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, the privilege of having mineral

rights of your land should be worth something if you want to

keep them. If you don't want to keep them, all you have to do is turn the mineral

rights back to the Crown, and you keep the surface. There are

situations where some people own the mineral rights and other

people own the surface over the mineral rights.

I say that under this Act, if any of the farmers — I

don't know how many there would be — who own mineral

rights don't want the mineral rights, they can turn them back

to the Crown. If we were to make fish out of one and fowl out

of the other under this Act, you as a lawyer know well enough

that it would immediately be termed unconstitutional and we

wouldn't get it through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound,

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister hasn't answered the problem that arises once

you turn the mineral rights back to the Crown and someone wishes to go in and

explore those lands for….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You have to ask permission.

MR. WILLIAMS: They have to ask permission from you. Well,

that's the question I'm asking. When someone comes along to

seek permission from the Minister of Mines for the purpose of

exploration and development….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. He's got to ask for permission from

the owner.

MR. WILLIAMS: From the owner?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: From the owner under this Act? The owner

under this definition?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's under the Mineral Act . It

would revert to them. Once it had come back to the public, then

it reverts to the Mineral Act . It's not a Crown-granted

mineral claim any more. They've got to follow the Mineral

Act then, and you've got to ask permission to go on

somebody's land. If you really want to go, you've got to put up

a bond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if I'm wrong here, I'm sure

the Minister will set me straight. I noticed in subsection 1(

b) it provides for the Crown to attach a tax of up to 25 mills

land tax from the looks of it, and yet there is no provision

anywhere in here for local government to benefit in any way

from that tax. Yet it is an area in which local government is

usually allowed to be supreme. I'm wondering if there is any

possibility that some of that money will revert to local

government?

[ Page 2924 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, this is not on the land, it's on the

mineral rights so it doesn't tax the surface.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Subsection (

b) says that it's the assessment

of this designated mineral land situated within the production

area; not the minerals coming out of the land, but the land

itself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's just a definition. When you look back

here at the definition of mineral lands, you mean, "land, other

than Crown land…any mineral is, or may be, situated…."

MR. McCLELLAND: But it still means land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, it's the mineral, and it's got to be…. It's mineral land.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't buy that because

that isn't what the definition says. The definition says that

it means, "land, other than Crown land…" under which or in

which the mineral may be situated. So in this instance we are

taxing land, not minerals, according to your own

definitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mineral lands.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, mineral land, which is land

regardless. And as the Minister has explained, that mineral

land may lie anywhere; it may be under your backyard, for all

we know. But it's still land and not minerals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 5 pass?

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM:

Section 6(2)(

b) Mr. Chairman, says that the

administrator may, "take such steps and use such sources of

information as he considers necessary." Now what you've given

here statutorily is an enormous power and one that is, in my

view, far, far unnecessary. What are "steps"? The 39 steps? Any

kind of a step whatsoever?

The man has an administrative function in any event, so it is not necessary

to go ahead and describe the thing in complete breadth within the terms of the

statute. He can also use sources of information as he considers necessary. Anybody

could end up with a kooky kind of administrator and if you give him the total

power to use sources of administration as he deems necessary, does that mean,

for example, he can start inquiring into income tax forms? Does that mean he

can go ahead and use it for purposes of unfair persuasion and the balancing

of one side against the other?

It's an excessive power; it's not necessary for him to carry

out his administrative function. I've filed an amendment with

the Clerks and I now do move that

section 6(

b) be deleted.

Section 6(2)(b).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You'd emasculate the whole bill if you

took out

section 6.

MR. GARDOM: Well then, you really have issued the caveat

here. This is a real super-snooper kind of situation you're

suggesting. If you say that your whole bill is depending upon a

totality of power such as you've given here, you've certainly

let the cat out of the bag for the Province of B.C.

If that's what you want: the capacity for any person to take any kind of steps

that he deems necessary and use any kind of sources of information as he deems

necessary — why does he have to have that complete breadth? You've almost got

more power in that

section — and you say you lose the bill without it — than

you found in the Energy Act,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: And you say it emasculates the bill if that's

not there. Well then, if that's the situation, you're proposing

a very sinister bill here which you've not told us about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm using his words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: He's not dexter, either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The force of the amendment is

to delete part (

b) of subsection 2 of

section 6.

Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria

section 6.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, in

section 6 in substance we

have

an Act in which the subject to be taxed, namely designated

mineral land, is not determinable; where the rate of tax,

namely the mill

[ Page 2925 ]

rate, is not determinable; and where the tax base, namely

the assessed value, is impossible to determine. Because of

these extremely broad taxing powers, I think that this

section

again gives the government another blank cheque.

I don't care whether it's this government or the next

government that comes along, but under this

section it does

give them the right to impose taxes that are so onerous and

could be so ruinous as to result in confiscation of the mineral

rights in the mining properties in this section.

Now

section 6 also has one other item which I want to

mention as well. This is the part of the

section which gives

them the information to mail out to every owner on May 1 of

each year the tax assessment which earlier I said I don't know

how they are going to figure out. Frankly, I have no idea how

the man who owns the mineral rights is going to find out

whether it's right or wrong because I really can't see how you

figure it out.

But I also must now refer to another section. If he wants to

appeal, which he has the right to do in

section 6, then he gets

down into

section 23 and he has approximately 15 days to decide

whether this tax was right or wrong on a basis of which, as I

say, I have really no idea how you are going to figure out. I'm

sure he hasn't any idea how to figure it out. Yet he has to

tell you within 15 days, and if you take the mailing time off

it could be 10 or 11 days. He has to tell you in full when he

decides he is going to appeal the assessment. So you simply

haven't given him enough time.

It's absolutely wrong. This

section of the bill should be

completely removed. It's a terrible section. The things it

allows are really very, very bad.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the only place that the

assessment applies is in the case of a production tract. The

other is a flat rate of 25 cents to $1. There is no assessment

there at all. The assessment with 12.5 mills the first year and

25 mills the second year is against the assessment, and the

assessment will be based on production of the previous

year.

MR. MORRISON: It says that you can deem it any way you want

it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, we could, but we are not going to do

it any way we like it.

MR. MORRISON: Sure. Again you say, "Well, we're not going to

do it, but the power is there to do it.” That's the point

I am trying to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria. Would you address the Chair, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to agree with my colleague

from Victoria. This puts the administrator in a very

interesting position with tremendous power.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can appeal the assessments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's great. But nevertheless, the

initial stage where the administrator basically sets the tax

for people under this

section and, of course, the previous

section as well….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Act sets the tax.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Act sets the tax, but he sets the

designated value of the mineral land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But you do that with all your land. Your

municipalities are doing it every day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't know whether the municipalities

have some of the powers such as, for example, "take such steps

and use such sources of information as he considers

necessary."

We think that in a situation such as this where the

uncertainty is so great and when you go on, as the Hon. First

Member for Victoria mentioned, in the appeal sections, you're

simply handing over virtually the whole power to tax, which

should be the role and function of this Legislature, to an

administrator.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, no. The tax is there in the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 6 pass?

Section 6 approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: On

section 9, Mr. Chairman, the concept of

production tracts could indeed cause very serious consequences

where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates as a

production tract several parcels of land of separate

owners.

Now under

section 3(l), the Lieutenant-Governor has the

ability to designate any portion of the province to be a

production tract, which was the point made just a few seconds

ago by Victoria over

[ Page 2926 ]

here. But under

section 9(5) which is the one…. Are you

looking at 9(5), Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I'm looking at it.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, good stuff. Under 9(5), the owners of the

parcels contained in the production tract are jointly liable

for the tax. Now without any action by a landowner, this land

is arbitrarily comprised in a production tract, and he becomes

liable for his neighbour's mineral land tax, notwithstanding

that he…(Laughter).

I just got a note that amused me. I didn't think Xavier was

here, however….

Thus without action by a landowner, his land is arbitrarily

comprised in a production tract and he becomes liable for his

neighbour's mineral land tax, notwithstanding that he might not

have any mining operations or any intention of carrying on

mining operations on his own parcels of land. In fact, he might

not have any interest whatsoever in the minerals underlying his

parcel.

So what you're saying here is that an owner is jointly and

severally liable for tax if he's under a production tract.

That's what it says, right?

You can have no end of people under a production tract. One

fellow who might be exercising mineral rights or have minerals

and another who is not — who is equally an owner —

and the way I read this thing is that you make them jointly and

severally liable. That's quite inequitable. Therefore I would

move, Hon. Minister — and the motion is with the Chairman

— that we delete subsection 4 and renumber the existing

subsection 5 as subsection 4.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman….

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, when I was making my remarks here, I

was referring to No. 5 incorrectly. I'm speaking about No.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I know. I realize that because usually

when the legal fraternity speaks of one thing, they might mean

another. Anyway, this is a production tract. This is a mine. If

there's a mine or claims that they're working on owned by two

or three different owners, which we have in some instances,

then they're all liable for the tax.

This is a tax on the production, in a production tract. It's

not….

MR. GARDOM: You make excellent sense with your definition; I agree with

you. But, you see, you're talking about a mine and your Act says a production

tract. You can go ahead and nominate as a production tract, Mr. Minister, say,

100,000 acres or 50,000 acres as a production tract and you may have on that

production tract a mine, which you're talking about, under more than one owner

of the mine. But at the other end — the "north forty," shall we say — you find

Mr. Nimsick Jr. happening to own some land. By virtue of it being a production

tract, he is jointly and severally responsible for the total tax on the production

tract. And it's wrong.

Your concept is completely correct, but the language in your

bill is incorrect.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, accept my concept and I'll talk to

my lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you at least do get the point.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll talk to my lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: All right. I think it would be best cured by

just going ahead and deleting…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, no.

MR. GARDOM: …what you have here. I'll tell you why:

because if you do have more than one owner, according to land

law they are jointly and severally responsible anyway. You know

that. Under the law of partnership partners are jointly and

severally responsible. If you've got two or three companies

acting in concert in a particular situation, they're

responsible for the tax if they own the property.

You keep shaking your head.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You lawyers can twist it around. You can

twist it.

MR. GARDOM: There's nothing being twisted, nothing

whatsoever. Why don't you ask the Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk), since the Attorney General is out of the House, to

come up and sit beside you and go through some of these things.

This is equally as valid, if not more so, than the great

amendment from my friend from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

Well, look, is it native cunning that's making you say

"no"?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What?

MR. GARDOM: Is it native cunning that's making you say "no"?

There must be some reason behind it. Eh? You're suspicious.

You are suspicious of people.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No — I'm not suspicious of you at

all.

MR. GARDOM: You're not?

[ Page 2927 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON:

Section 11 gives the Crown the right to have a

lien on the property, but no requirement to register that lien.

I think it's important that that lien should be registered

under

section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 11 pass?

Section 11 approved.

Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the fact

that 9 per cent interest on taxes is a very high rate. It seems

to be higher than any other interest rate charged by any other

province. It seems very high and extremely unnecessary. What's

the reason for that high rate?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, according to one Act, 9 per

cent is the regular tax today. We're not trying to compete with

the other loaning companies. It's what the legal fraternity

inform me is the regular tax the government has.

MR. MORRISON: Is that the tax in future on all overdue

taxes?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you're charged 10 per cent on city

taxes.

MR. MORRISON: The Province of British Columbia doesn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: I think we deserve a better explanation of usury

on the part of the government than "it's just the standard rate

for lawyers." Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that lawyers are

usurious — but the socialist government?

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, here we have "the board

shall consist of three people" and yet it's left uncertain as

to how many people shall constitute a quorum. Presumably this

should be fixed at two and it should not be left…or is it

the intention of the government to fix it at one? I would say

the best thing to do would be to put in the number "two" there.

It makes sense. And I don't see why it has to be left to the

discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is

21(3)(a).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's only going to be a three-man

board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in actual fact it shall consist of

a chairman and two other members appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It would seem absurd to have a

quorum of one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is proposing to have the

Minister answer, would the Minister rise on that point?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, would he like to comment on that?

Because it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. I would just like some

order so that Hansard doesn't get confused. When the

Hon. Member asks a question of the Minister I would request

that he sit down so that the Minister might stand to answer so

the mike might pick it up — if he so chooses.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, did you want me to answer? It's

answered right there, "Subject to the fixing of the quorum, no

vacancy in the membership of the board shall impair the right

of the remaining board members to act." So it would be a

majority.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. Well why don't we fix it as a

certain number then, instead of just leaving it with the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Is there any reason for doing

so?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, anytime you have a quorum it's

usually a majority. If it's a five-member board, three would be

a quorum. If it's a three-member board….

[ Page 2928 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 21 pass?

Section 21 approved.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Under

section 23, Mr. Chairman, we find a very

restricted mode of appeal. There's only three named here: if a

person objects to being assessed as an owner, if he objects to

the amount of assessment made against his mineral land, or if

he objects to the amount of mineral land tax payable under the

Act. Those are his only three rights of appeal. We don't feel

it's broad enough.

Under

section 23(

l) a person can only object to an

assessment against his mineral land, although he may be

responsible for tax payable in respect of his lands being

included in a production tract, which I was arguing about a few

moments ago and you agreed to look into it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not unless he's got mineral rights.

MR. GARDOM: That's right, but there can be mineral rights on

the production tract, and you can have people who don't have

mineral rights on the production tract and still be jointly

responsible for the tax. If a person is going to be responsible

for payment of tax, he should certainly have the right to

object to the assessment which is the root of the tax. That's

only fair.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that we amend the

section by

adding three rights of appeal. These are to be added as

section

23, subsection 1(d), 1(

e) and 1(f). Subsection l(

d) is to read

this way: "Where a person objects to being designated as an

owner by the opinion of the administrator." He would have the

right to appeal that.

"Where a person objects to his land being considered mineral

land within the definition of the Act, he would have the right

to appeal that as (e)." Thirdly, as (f), if a person objects to

the inclusion of his land in a production area production

tract, he would have the right to appeal that too.

So I'm suggesting three additional rights of appeal to the

three that you have raised. You have them in front of you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I've got them. In the first part,

(d), being designated as an owner by the opinion of the

administrator, the only way that the administrator can

designate him as an owner is if he has got indefeasible title

to the mineral rights. So I mean he's got no argument there.

His land being considered mineral land, it isn't land that…his surface rights are not considered. It's the rights to the

minerals underneath the land. The other is dealing strictly

with production tracts and they've got an appeal against the

assessment on a production….

MR. GARDOM: Yes. Well, dealing with the first item that you

raised, Mr. Minister, under your

section 7, for the purpose of

making an assessment under the Act, a person becomes an owner

if the administrator so opines. Under 7(b), a person "who in

the opinion of the administrator is an owner with respect to

mineral land." Now you're talking about registered interests

and all these things. The point is, you see, that it's not

within the Act. What you're saying is one thing, and I agree

with your definition here for the second time tonight. I agree

with your explanation, but the terminology in your bill does

not carry out what you explained to the House.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes. But I was informed that my

terminology wasn't legal terminology, and they put it down here

in legal terminology.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you'd better have another chat with that

fellow, because I agree with your

interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to

section 23

pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 23 pass? I recognize the Hon.

First Member for Victoria on

section 23.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, once again I'd like to bring out

this point that if anyone chooses to appeal the assessment that

he has approximately 15 days in which to do so. This appears to

be a new departure for this government. Most other Acts allow

at least 60 days or 90 days to appeal an assessment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not the Municipal Act.

MR. MORRISON: This appears to be a very short time for an

assessment such as this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 23 pass?

[ Page

2929 ]

Section 23 approved.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: First of all I would like to pay my respects to

Hansard . They've done a marvellous job this session.

They really have. Secondly, I do hope that whoever is

responsible for overtime pay for people such as Hansard

and the attendants in the House, that that's been adequately

taken care of because I think, expressing my own views and I'm

sure the views of all of the Members of the House, that they've

really done well above and beyond the call of duty.

Now

section 27(3). This is not overly stimulating, I have to

agree with you.

section 27(3). This is an amazing power, and

this time I am delighted to see that you have a criminal lawyer

sitting beside you, because under subsection 3…no offence

to you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you mean that? (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: He's got a thick skin, you know. (Laughter).

Under subsection 3, where a corporation commits an offence

under the Act, "any officer, director, employee or agent of the

corporation who directed or authorized, assented to,

acquiesced, or participated in the commission of the offence

is, whether or not the corporation is prosecuted for the

offence, a party to and guilty of the offence without trial."

Without trial. Now really and truly you'd find him guilty

without trial and whether the corporation was even prosecuted

or not.

This is absolutely preposterous, Mr. Chairman. The

provisions of this subsection provide that the corporation need

not be prosecuted for an offence, yet these officers, or

directors, or employees are guilty of the offence. It's very

preposterous to suggest that any of those individuals who are

named, or in fact anyone in this country, could be guilty

without an opportunity to appear in court and defend his

position.

Now presumably it would be quite sufficient to jointly or

separately charge such defaulters with the offence, but we

should not have in the Province of British Columbia a

legislative decision of guilt without trial.

You know one of the golden threads that runs through the concept of criminal

law is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — and proven guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. This concept initiated itself way, way back in the

days of Henry II, and it's the type of thing that we certainly shouldn't eliminate

in the days of Leo I.

Now I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that the

section

now read as follows: "Where a corporation commits an offence

under this Act, any officer, director, employee or agent of the

corporation who directed, authorized" — and up to this

point your

section is the same, Mr. Minister — "directed,

authorized, assented to or participated in the commission of

the offence is subject to prosecution for the offence and this

subsection does not affect the liability of the corporation or

any said officer, director, employee or agent of the

corporation for the same offence."

Now this gives the right to charge these people. I see the

necessity for your provision here, but it does not make them

automatically found guilty without hearing, without evidence,

and without trial by nothing more than legislative

incompetence.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A little more quiet.

MR. GARDOM: What you've got here is a situation of these

people being judged guilty by the terminology in your statute

without an opportunity to have their day in court, without

trial, without hearing, without evidence, without anything. I

think you have gone too far.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, are you going to sit down or are you

going to stay up?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've been sitting so long today…(Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say that

before the corporation…the corporation would have to be

found guilty.

MR. GARDOM: That's not what it says. It does not.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Where a corporation commits an offence

— they don't commit an offence….

MR. GARDOM: It doesn't say a corporation can be brought to

trial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A person isn't judged before

[ Page 2930 ]

he is found guilty under this Act if any officer, director,

employee is involved. I see nothing wrong with the Act at all,

and I've got some very expert legal advice.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's an awful thing to say about your

advice. But really and truly, for the Minister to suggest that

if a corporation is prosecuted it means a conviction, that's an

entirely different thing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. If he goes to trial.

MR. GARDOM: No. Whether or not the corporation is

prosecuted. It says "whether or not the corporation is

prosecuted an employee is guilty and a party to the offence."

Now that is absolute nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. You

won't find anything in the criminal law in this country along

this line. What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Your argument to me, doesn't support again what

you've got in your bill. Would you like, insofar as this

section is concerned, would you be prepared…

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. Would the Hon. Member be

seated, please.

MR. GARDOM: …to hold the

section until you have an

opportunity to consider it in legislative council?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have an announcement to make to the

House. The Minister of Highways has become a grandfather

tonight — 6 lbs. 12 1/2 ozs. and would Anne please find

the Minister in the coffee shop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a boy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, to answer

the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. The same or

similar provisions appear in federal legislation. What it means

is….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's not a mistake and I'll explain it. Give me a chance

to explain it to you, because you don't understand clearly what it means.

A director, any officer, employee, agent, of the corporation

who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or

participated in the commission of the offence, is guilty of the

offence whether or not the corporation itself has been charged.

This is found all over the place, In other words, the man who

is charged, the agent, the employee or whoever, can be charged

on an information.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: You always have in the criminal code, my friend,

statements that a person who commits rape is guilty of an

offence. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a trial, and

it's nonsense to suggest that he doesn't have a trial. It's as

common…any penalty provision carries that "he is guilty of

an offence." It doesn't set out that he shall be tried, he

shall be charged and so on. It all comes under the

Summary

Convictions Act . But in this situation the Crown must prove

that the corporation committed an offence; secondly, that the

person charged either directed, authorized, assented to,

acquiesced or participated in the commission of that

offence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey be

passed?

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 27 pass?

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm interested in

section 28(g)(

i) where

it talks about a supplementary mineral land assessment. I don't

know what that is. I don't believe I've come across it yet in

the bill. I would like to know, what is a supplementary mineral

land assessment? Does this set the guy up for more taxes yet,

that are undefined in this bill? What is the supplementary tax

roll? What is the whole idea of a supplementary mineral land

assessment?

I thought it was already assessed and there was one roll and

this fellow here with all the power, the administrator, was the

guy who set things up. Now we find the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council setting up a brand new system

under the supplementary heading. I'd like to know more about

it. It seems like

[ Page 2931 ]

it might be just as high as, if not higher than, the regular

tax roll talked about in the earlier sections of the Act.

Mr. Minister, that's on p. 12,

section 28(g)(i). It's about

60 per cent of the way down the page.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is perfectly unsatisfactory. What is

the supplementary tax roll?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would be for determination by the

administrator.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not for the administrator.

That's the thing. This is for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's something new that has

popped into the Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can't make anything inconsistent with

the Act, anyway.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's part of the Act so it can

hardly be inconsistent with anything else. It's just that it's

something brand new. I'm not suggesting that it's going to

destroy the purpose of earlier sections. I'm simply saying that

I don't know what a supplementary mineral land assessment is or

a supplementary mineral land tax is. It comes up here for the

first time, to the best of my knowledge. Before I vote on this

section, I'd like to know about it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These are regulations that would be….

MR. McGEER: Do you know what your Act is about?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is what the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will not have to do.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'll tell us what's in

section 28 prior

to the vote, right? O.K. Tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye. (Laughter),

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The nays have it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is great fun but I intend to stand

on my feet here until we get some explanation, until we vote on the section.

The point is that we have a brand new mineral land

assessment and a brand new mineral land tax under the heading

of "supplementary." The whole thing refers to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's powers under the regulation

section, O.K.?

Section 28 is regulation. Now what in the devil

does it mean? I don't know. Apparently the Minister doesn't

know. The Premier certainly doesn't know. No one else in this

House is able to enlighten me.

If it is something which is new and capable of being a

charge upon the owners of mineral land in the province, surely

we should have some explanation. I have been looking at this

— I've been trying to give the Minister time to find out

what this is all about. I've read this Act and I've looked at

the powers of the administrator, which are perfectly

horrifying. We've looked at the appeal section. The First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) discussed that at some

length.

We're now on

section 28. In the regulation section, here

comes a supplementary mineral land assessment and supplementary

mineral land taxes. Apparently, these can be put forward by

regulation. I would like to know what we're buying here,

because we've sure bought an awful lot of things in this

session so far that Ministers haven't explained. I'd like to

know what's in this. It may be perfectly straightforward. I'm

not an expert on mining taxes. But I would hope that the

Minister — or perhaps he can send out for some of his

advisers….

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order. Is Mel

Watkins in the House anywhere? He might be able to help us on

this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the supplementary mineral

land assessment is to make a correction, probably. It may have

to be a supplementary assessment roll. You've got

supplementaries in the Municipal Act, I believe.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister,

that 28(g)(ii), as opposed to 28(g)(i)….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, that's correcting assessments …

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. I'm talking about that

section. You've suggested that (

i) and (ii) are the same thing.

Why did you put them down

[ Page 2932 ]

separately if they're the same thing? I'm talking about

28(g)(i), not 28(g)(ii). I agree with you, 28(g)(ii) is

correcting errors.

Section 28(g)(

i) is unknown to me and

apparently to you and certainly to the Premier.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Surely, we couldn't vote on this section.

You've based it on a brand new tax system, if the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides to use this system.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is just prescribing procedures to be

followed respecting the supplemental mineral land taxes. Then

it's the administrator who would decide. This is setting up

procedures for that purpose. It's not setting up any new tax

roll or anything. We're setting up something for the

administrator to act upon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In which case, I think the best thing for

us to do at this stage is to delete the word "supplementary"

because it hasn't occurred before. It cannot be explained or

has not been explained….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've explained it. It's additional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member will write an amendment,

we'll dispose of the amendment and then go on to the section.

Perhaps it will be passed, perhaps it won't.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is really an astonishing

procedure that we're into. I think this is the first time that

we've ever had a Minister so completely stumped about his own

legislation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: The Premier groans but he's been stumped too. I

would just like to make a modest suggestion to the Premier, Mr.

Chairman. Perhaps he could equip the Members of the cabinet

with walkie-talkies so they could have the legislation

explained to them as we move along.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is

ready with his amendment. Could you move your amendment,

please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that in

section

28(g)(

i) the first word, namely "supplementary" is deleted, so

that 28(g)(

i) will now read: "prescribing procedures to be

followed respecting mineral land assessment and taxes."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment negatived.

Sections 28 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 64, Mineral Land Tax Act , reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 169, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PLACER-MINING ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 169; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Really, I don't know if the whole Act is not

redundant. There's a freeze over the placer mining business in

British Columbia. Has it been removed? When? By order?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: By order of the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, well. O.K. Carry on.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: 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 No. 169,

An Act to Amend the Placer-mining

[ Page 2933 ]

Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 130, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

ACT, 1968

House in committee on Bill No. 130; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 130,

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation

Act , 1968, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 152, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 152; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River

section 13.

MR. CHABOT: On

section 13, I'm wondering if we could get an

interpretation of "officer of a corporation" as to how far down

the line you are going in the definition of "officer." Also, to

what degree of liability will a contractor be responsible for

the failure of a subcontractor on a construction site?

Also, I think there is the possibility that people who are directorship material

might hesitate to become directors because of the possibility of a company going

bankrupt. The company with 1,000 employees, for instance, might average $700

per month, extending for a two-month period, and could easily be responsible

for a payroll on a one-month basis of $700,000. Say a company has seven directors;

they each might be equally responsible for the payment of wages of $100,000.

In order to protect these people, I'm wondering whether the

new British Columbia Insurance Corporation might give

consideration to putting out insurance so that these directors

will be protected — not only the directors, but the

officers of the company. Just how far do you expect to go down

the ladder in the company in your definition of an

"office"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, Mr. Chairman, the

directors and officers of companies would, of course, only be

liable for any wages owing if there were insufficient assets to

cover the liability for wages unpaid. Certainly in most

circumstances the assets in the kind of corporation that the

Member for Columbia River outlines would usually be large

enough to satisfy the wage claims that could be generated

through non-payment over a two-month period. It would be an

unusual situation and usually only in the case of a relatively

small company where the assets of the officers might be called

upon to satisfy a claim.

MR. CHABOT: There are contractors, I'm sure, that are

operating with leased equipment and so forth, and they have

very little outside of an office to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Years from now, this House will be in

trouble. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: This House is in trouble now. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: The thing is, I'm wondering if you will talk to

your colleague here. Sometimes there are difficulties among the

Ministers. They don't talk to each other. They have to get

communications from some outside advisory board to find out

what another Minister is doing. In order to protect some of

these directors that might be putting their….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, they might be putting their grandsons on

the line. I'm wondering whether there'll be insurance from the

British Columbia Insurance Corporation to protect them.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted, I'm just

delighted to see the Member for Columbia

[ Page 2934 ]

River advocating the extension of automobile insurance to

this kind of liability coverage to corporations.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. Not automobile.

HON. MR. KING: And certainly I think that if they made

application, the Minister of Highways would be more than

receptive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 13 pass?

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 No. 152,

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 153, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR

EMPLOYMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 153; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if, in

connection with

section 1 and the definition of "public work," the Minister could clarify once and for all whether or

not "agencies of the Crown" includes or does not include

municipalities or school districts.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the exemption for school

boards, municipal councils and so on are contained in

amendments to those Acts rather than to this one, and this has

been the case over the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about hospitals?

HON. MR. KING: Pardon?

MR. WILLIAMS: What about hospitals?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I believe there is an amendment to the

Hospital Act which provides for an exemption also.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: On

section 2, Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We speak to the amendment now proposed by the

Hon. Minister of Labour to

section 2.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the

section

that deals with the arbitrary decision of this legislation in

which people must become a party to a collective agreement,

where workers must be unionized in order to be employed by the

government.

This is the

section in which there is no longer any free

choice on the part of workers to decide whether they want to be

union members or non-union members. The free choice is out the

window if you're going to work on a government contract.

If workers opt not to belong to a union, of course, you are

in effect penalizing the employer. If the workers decide that

they don't want to belong to a union it, in effect, says that

the employer cannot participate in a government project or a

government contract.

You're saying in effect that the employer, if he wants to

enjoy the benefits of bidding on government contracts, must

fire his workers that don't want to be union members. They must

be fired if he's ever to get a contract with the

government.

I think that there was nothing seriously wrong with the old

Act. If there were any complaints, all it really required was a

matter of enforcement. It had the necessary provisions to

ensure that the workers were not taken advantage of as far as

wages were concerned.

It's my belief that anyone who pays taxes in British Columbia should have the

right to bid on government contracts without being forced to have a

[ Page

2935 ]

union shop in his company. In effect, what you're doing with

this section, in many instances, is increasing the cost of

government projects in various areas of the province. Not only

are you increasing costs, you're denying certain small

contractors in some of the more rural parts of the province the

right to participate in government contracts. I don't subscribe

to that kind of a philosophy.

However, it appears that this government is willing to pay

the price of additional costs for the purpose of enforcing

union membership to all workers who might work on a government

contract. Really this

section is big-union legislation —

king-of-the-union legislation. It's not the type of legislation

that I support. It's not the type of legislation that we should

be discussing in a free society such as we have enjoyed in the

past in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I expressed this party's

opposition to this type of restrictive discriminatory

legislation, ironically and erroneously called the Public

Works Fair Employment Act , at an earlier time during the

second reading.

I see that the point I objected to then has not been

amended, despite the amendment we accepted a moment ago. We

feel it is most unfortunate that there be a substantial

restriction upon the contractors and employees capable of

taking advantage of government work.

We have no quarrel with the government if it wishes to

improve working conditions for those contractors contracting

with the government. That's fair enough, as I said at that

time. But to insist upon union contracts, in our view, would

mean that more than 50 per cent of the employees of this

province would be barred from benefiting directly or indirectly

from government contracts.

Of course the figure is not identical for public works

contracts with construction companies, but the principle

remains the same. Those who pay taxes to the government do so

honestly. Those who obey the law should have the right to deal

with the government. I'm glad the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in the room because I've often referred

to him in the context of this principle.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment

to this section. I move it because this government has

announced that they expect the civil service to be the model

employer of the Province of British Columbia. That's a plausible objective. If it is to

become the model employer of the Province of British Columbia,

I see no reason for anyone to object if any contractor working

for the government pays the same wages and provides the same

working conditions as the model employer of British Columbia,

namely the British Columbia government.

Therefore, my amendment in subsection 2(b) — are you

with me? About two-thirds of the way down the page, where it

says: "the person with whom the contract is entered into has

entered into a collective agreement with those employees of his

who are employed to do the work." I would delete all words

after the word "into," thus leaving "the person with

whom the contract is entered into" and I would substitute the

following: "pays wages and provides working conditions

equivalent to or better than the wages and working conditions

of the civil service for those doing comparable work." I have

it here.

I cannot see how this can meet with any criticism by the

government. We appreciate their desire to make sure that people

who contract for government work treat their employees

reasonably and decently. All of us of all parties subscribe to

that principle. But there is no need for restrictions which

prohibit more than 50 per cent of the working people of this

province from benefiting from contracts with the government.

That is what the Act as unamended would do.

We say instead, set the civil service up as the government

intends to set it up — as the model employer in the

Province of British Columbia. At the same time, anybody who

contracts with the government has to use the civil service of

the Province of British Columbia as the standard against which

they must judge and be judged for both working conditions and

wages This achieves the objective which we are told was in the

mind of the government, namely fair treatment of employees in

the Province of British Columbia. At the same time it

re-emphasizes the government's desire to make the civil service

the model employer in the Province of British Columbia. As the

third point, it gets away from discriminatory, restrictive

legislation which denies the right to deal with their own

government to more than 50 per cent of the employees of the

province.

MR. CHABOT: Fifty-eight per cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fifty-eight per cent. I am corrected.

If we can trust the government's own words about its

intentions towards the civil service, this amendment can only

be accepted by the government. Mr. Chairman, I would like to

move that amendment at this time.

[ Page 2936 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Under the previous legislation, the Minister

of Labour had the power arbitrarily to fix the wages of those

people contracting with the government to do work. Our

philosophy indicates that a more acceptable way of the

employees achieving a fairer standard of wages and working

conditions is through the collective bargaining process.

Indeed, that's the whole concept behind the move to provide

free collective bargaining for the civil servants.

For the Second Member for Victoria to suggest that we should

use the rates and conditions negotiated by the civil servants

as a model elsewhere would be a whole negation, I think, of the

underlying reason that we are providing collective bargaining

rights to the civil service. This is so that they can, of their

own volition and of their own initiative, in equality with

their employer, negotiate their own wages and conditions. To

deprive the rest of the private sector who are in contract with

the government, of the same opportunity would be discriminatory

in the extreme, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

It reveals to me the whole concept of the opposition that

we're excluding people. It reveals an underlying

misunderstanding and discriminatory attitude to the working

people of this province. I believe that if those people knew

anything about the trade union movement and the workaday world

out there, they'd understand how many contracting company

unions particularly are applying for certifications and how

very, very difficult it is to obtain certification in the

construction industry.

The record belies the proposition that they don't want union

organization. Indeed they do. I think it's admirable to provide

assistance to them in that worthy function, so that they can

indeed deal freely and collectively with their employer. I

certainly oppose the amendment put forward, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, seldom have I heard such complete

and utter hogwash from a Minister of the Crown. He's directly

discriminating against 58 per cent of the labour force in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: The assumption is, then, that people don't

want to belong to a union, eh?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the assumption must be that a

person is free to join a union if he so desires, without the

arm-twisting of the Minister of Labour and the provincial

Government of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get into medicine?

MR. McGEER: When the provincial government, working in

league with the B.C. Federation of Labour, tries to hold a club

over the working people of British Columbia, it would be wrong

if clear-minded Members of this Legislature did not stand up in

defence of those who do not wish this discrimination forced

upon them.

Let it be remembered once more, Mr. Chairman, that even in

the matter of union membership in British Columbia there is not

freedom. If people in this province wish to join a Canadian

union, they are discriminated against…

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

MR. McGEER: …by the legislation of the province…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Would you confine your remarks to the

section before us?

MR. McGEER: …by the regulations which are promulgated by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by the actions of the

Labour Relations Board …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine

his remarks to the bill before us and the amendment before

us.

Could you turn on the mike, please?

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Hon. Member that when I

want to make a point, would he mind stop talking? That's the

reason I turned off your mike. You may proceed. Would you

confine your remarks to the amendment before us?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, do you push the buttons around

this place? (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member refuses to accede to the

chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was struggling very hard to hear

what was going on. I was trying as best I could to make my

point in the face of hostile glances from the government

side.

Mr. Chairman, if I could make the point with the microphone

on, the leader of the Liberal Party has made the most valid

point of the session in asking for equality of all citizens of

British Columbia. If ever there should be a place where fair

treatment and equality are practised, it should be by this

Legislative Assembly and by the government itself. But what

[ Page 2937 ]

section 2 does is eliminate all possibility of work for the

provincial government by 58 per cent of the working people of

the province.

What the amendment provided for by the leader of the Liberal

Party does is restore this equality. Yet the Minister of Labour

stood up and gave us complete and utter hogwash and nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, when the vote comes on this amendment, I would

ask you to listen very carefully out of the left ear as well as

the right ear. I'm sure that the voices on this side of the

House will carry this amendment for freedom and fair play in

British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've been moved by that speech. When the

freedom bell rings in this House, one must really contemplate

what has been going on in the civil service all these

years.

Do you know that we have been restricted to hiring doctors

who have a closed shop through the College of Physicians and

Surgeons all these years? Do you know that we couldn't hire a

lawyer unless he'd been to the Bar? Which bar? (Laughter).

Now we know where that Member stands. He belongs to the

closed shop of the closed shop — the medical profession

that limits who can belong to that group. Listen to who's

talking about the freedom bell tonight. They've closed the

civil service. They've closed the hospitals. They've closed the

general practice. Unless you've passed that hallowed group

— the College of Physicians and Surgeons….If he

believed what he said about hogwash tonight, where's his

private bill opening the College of Physicians and Surgeons? Is

it on the order paper? Oh, no way. Oh, that's different. Don't

mess with that freedom bell.

Then there's the bar association. Oh, yes, the lawyers stand

up and say, "We're against this closed shop. You can't order

men to be union men." But try to go into court without a rented

wig. Oh, oh. You've even got to get your dusting powder from

the right bar. Who do you think you're kidding?

Those kinds of privileges have been reserved for the wealthy

and the privileged, who have always taken advantage of a closed

shop for the protection of their profession. But when it comes

to the ordinary working person — no, no, no. Who's trying

to kid who about hogwash with all their mumbo-jumbo at the

College of Physicians and Surgeons? We've heard it tonight and

we haven't seen it on the order paper.

Why shouldn't the ordinary man of this province be protected

by a union contract, the right to fellowship, the right to

collective bargaining, just like the professions have? That's

why I support this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it's always rather

interesting when the Premier gets carried away by his own

oratory. I hope you'll grant me the same latitude to stray from

the amendment as was granted to the Premier.

I'm really disappointed that the Premier is politicking in

this way tonight. He knows that the College of Physicians and

Surgeons exists to protect the public, not to protect the

doctors.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: No, that's a fact. There's no point in making

smart remarks, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that the College of

Physicians and Surgeons exists under the Medical Act and

its official function is to license doctors to protect the

public. A doctor has to prove that he has the requisite

training and qualifications to be able to function in society.

The Act and the whole purpose of the college is to protect the

public in having adequately and properly trained, competent

doctors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Now, if you'll allow me to finish, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Comparing apples and oranges, let me hastily

say that the B.C. Medical Association, to which membership is

voluntary, negotiates with the government regarding fees and

the conditions under which the doctor works. To suggest to the

public of British Columbia that the College of Physicians and

Surgeons has anything whatever to do with our conditions of

work or our fees….

The College of Physicians and Surgeons, under the Medical

Act — and the Premier knows this very well and I've

mentioned this in the House before. The protection which is

involved by the College is the protection of every citizen in

this province to be sure that doctors are adequately trained

and competent and obeying the laws of this land. It is a legal

Act. It is

an Act which has the full power of this

legislation.

If the Premier is unhappy, Mr. Chairman, all he has to do is

change the ballgame by legislation and license doctors by the

government…. No, no, you can't have it both ways, Mr.

Premier.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm giving the workers the same privilege. The

questions of fees and conditions of work has nothing whatever

to do with the College — nothing.

[ Page 2938 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No you don't. Mr. Chairman, may I again make

this very plain. Since the College issues licences, it is the

only source of a licence, for the reason I've mentioned, Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: That is completely false, Mr. Chairman. The

membership in the B.C. Medical Association, which governs the

bargaining with the government, is voluntary. There are many

doctors in this province….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't belong without being a member of

the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, because you need a licence.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: This is a very important point, Mr. Chairman.

There's a vital piece of information misrepresented by the

Premier in this House. It is a fact that if a doctor is legally

licensed by the College, he does not have to be a member of the

association. It's a fact.

Anyway, having cleared that point up, I feel that you've

granted me latitude to refute the Premier's statement and I

appreciate it. Therefore, because we also believe in free

choice, I support the amendment of the Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). He's trying to achieve two ends.

He's trying to preserve the freedom of an individual to choose

whether or not he should be in a union. At the same time, he's

giving the government the right to say that anyone seeking to

do business with the government should at least pay the same

wages and provide the same conditions or work as a union worker

providing the same kind of service.

I feel that this is not unreasonable, particularly when we

have such a substantial number of the workers of this province

non-unionized.

I accept the 58 per cent. I accept the idea that if workers

feel that they do better by being unionized, they should be

given every freedom to choose and to be certified. The Minister

says they have difficulty in becoming certified. Perhaps he can

explain why there is that difficulty.

He said in an answer earlier on, Mr. Chairman, that it would surprise the opposition

to learn that many people in the construction industry have difficulty becoming

certified, and that puzzles me if the advantages cla