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 9, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2381 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Easter recess. Mr. Curtis

— 2381

Gabriola ferry landing. Mr. Chabot — 2381

Armed entry of city tavern. Mr. Wallace — 2381

Amalgamation vote in Kamloops. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2381

Rail cars for BCR. Mr. Fraser — 2382

Possible power cutbacks. Mr. Curtis — 2382

Railroad construction between Clinton and Ashcroft. Mr. Fraser —

Sukunka coal negotiations. Mr. Gardom — 2383

Municipal transit buses. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2383

Flooding at Mica reservoir. Mr. Rolston — 2383

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. (Bill

No. 149). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2384

Mr. Gardom — 2384

Mr. Lockstead — 2385

Mr. Wallace — 2385

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2385

An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act (Bill No. 150). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2386

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company

Construction Loan Act (Bill No. 151). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2386

Mr. McGeer — 2387

Mr. Wallace — 2388

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2388

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. (Bill

No. 159). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2389

Mr. McClelland — 2390

Mr. Williams — 2391

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2392

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2392

Mr. Morrison — 2393

Mr. McGeer — 2393

Mr. Lauk — 2395

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2396

An Act to Amend the College Pension Act. (Bill No. 160).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2396

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill No. 161).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2397

Mr. Gardom — 2398

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2398

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. (Bill No. 33).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2398

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2398

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act. (Bill No. 40). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2399

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act. (Bill No. 111). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

An Act to Amend the Farmers' Land-Clearing Assistance Act.

(Bill No. 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2400

Mr. Smith — 2400

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2400

Mr. Richter — 2401

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2401

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968. (Bill

No. 130). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2401

Mr. Barnes — 2402

Mr. Rolston — 2402

Mr. Williams — 2403

Hon. Mr. King — 2403

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

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2404

Mr. Chabot — 2404

Mr. Williams — 2404

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

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

reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

Mr. Chabot — 2405

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2406

Mr. Wallace — 2407

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2408

Mr. Phillips — 2408

Mr. Smith — 2410

Mr. Curtis — 2410

Mr. Nicolson — 2411

Mr. McClelland — 2412

Mr. McGeer — 2412

Mr. Richter — 2413

Mr. Williams — 2413

Mr. Barnes — 2413

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2415

An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public

Service of the Province of British Columbia. (Bill No.

172).

Royal assent — 2415

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

EASTER RECESS

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

the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Barrett). In order to assist Members

and others associated with this House who are attempting to

plan their immediate future, could the Premier indicate what

might take place in the event the House has not concluded its

business by the Easter weekend? Would he announce a recess of

some days duration?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It is too early to answer that. I

fully anticipate completion of the business in front of the

House before Easter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

GABRIOLA FERRY LANDING

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

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). In view of the fact the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has asked to be kept

informed by the Gabriola Advisory Planning Commission of any

correspondence between the Department of Highways and the local

commission regarding the Gabriola ferry landing, can the

Minister advise if he has implemented any system to advise his

colleague on what is taking place at Gabriola?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Yes, we are

having discussions on that matter right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

ARMED ENTRY OF CITY TAVERN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would seek your guidance in the absence

of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), I am not quite sure who should

be asked the question — but it is a matter of some urgent public importance,

I think. I would like to ask, perhaps, the acting Attorney General whether any

action is pending following the entry of two men with rifles to a tavern in

this city last week to the great fear of the people

in the tavern. I understand two soldiers with loaded rifles marched in and mounted

guard on two exits to the building. This seems to be rather an unusual occurrence

and I wonder if the Attorney General has any action he plans to take against

the two people concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter would have to await the return of

the Attorney General. Hope nobody shoots the gun.

(Laughter).

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

AMALGAMATION VOTE IN KAMLOOPS

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

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), Mr. Speaker. Now that the B.C.

Court of Appeal, on Friday, upheld the supreme court ruling

concerning a vote on amalgamation among the various areas near

Kamloops. Can I ask the Minister when he has scheduled for such

a vote to take place? and what steps he has taken to arrange

such a vote?

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

will be legislation brought in shortly in connection with this

question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether

or not legislation would be brought forward. What steps is the

Minister taking to obey the court's ruling?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The court ruling referred to my proposal

to the cabinet regarding a proposal. This proposal hasn't been

made as yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am confused on proposals, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister indicate at this time when such a vote is

likely to take place?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll take that as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary question regarding

Kelowna then — if we can't get very far with the Kamloops

amalgamation. As far as Kelowna is concerned, can the Minister

advise whether or not the amalgamation advisory committee,

which has been set up, will be continuing its work after the

end of this month — regardless of the setting up of any interim

council for the area?

HON. MR. LORIMER: It will not be carrying on its work after

the interim council is set up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister if negotiations on

the points given to this advisory committee to work on have not

been dealt with by that time, will the committee simply

disappear and

[ Page 2382 ]

will these negotiations collapse?

MR. SPEAKER: I think your questions is hypothetical.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

RAIL CARS FOR BCR

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A

question to the Premier as president of the British Columbia

Railroad. The rail car situation continues to deteriorate, I

was wondering if you had anything new to report on getting rail

cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing new to report, Mr. Member. As I

announced last week, plans were being made to lease cars, and

we hope for an earlier arrival of the 500 cars we have

purchased. As you know, there is a North American shortage. We

are doing everything we possibly can.

MR. FRASER: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. What about the

leasing of cars? Is there nothing new on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing new. The machinery has been put in

action. We have informed the railways to do whatever they can

in terms of leasing or obtaining cars. There are no holds

barred.

MR. SPEAKER: I might say for the guidance of Members that

questions having been asked several times already — unless

there is something new that has occurred that you are aware of,

I don't think you should keep repeating the question.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): But it is

very important.

MR. SPEAKER: I know. I appreciate it's urgent. The question

is whether there is anything to add to the existing state of

fact.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

POSSIBLE POWER CUTBACKS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). Could the Minister

indicate to the House if British Columbia Hydro, or his

department, foresee any difficulties in the next several months

in light of low snow pack and light rainfall in many parts of

British Columbia? Any power generating difficulties; any

likelihood of power cutbacks in the summer or early fall?

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

Resources): I'm certainly not aware of any, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental please, Mr. Speaker. With

specific respect to the central Vancouver Island area —

Strathcona, Ledora, John Hart systems — I understand that water

in some of those lakes is extremely low. Does he have any

comment on that particular part of British Columbia and the

B.C. Hydro generating system?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as the Member is aware, we are

proceeding with additional cables to southern Vancouver Island

in terms of the immediate longer term. With respect to the

lakes on the island, I would have to check that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION

BETWEEN CLINTON AND ASHCROFT

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, another question to the president

of the railroad. In view of the fact the B.C. government has

asked a minimum of $19 million for the northern extension of

the British Columbia Railroad, does the province expect any

projected hookup between the B.C. Railroad and the CNR

involving 44 miles of construction between Clinton and Ashcroft

to be paid by the national government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are discussing a number of problems

with the CNR including the payments we think are owing to the

people of British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Ashcroft-Clinton construction be over and above the request for

$19 million?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we are discussing a number of things

with the CNR.

AN HON. MEMBER: A number of things.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You weren't in on the discussion.

MR. FRASER: A further supplemental. Is the province seeking

to achieve a similar rate structure on the CNR line as is now

obtainable on the BCR for resource-oriented shipments,

particularly wood chips?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't hear the first part

MR. FRASER: Is the province seeking to achieve a similar rate structure

on the CN lines as now exists on the British Columbia Railroad particularly

with regard to resource shipping such as wood chips?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't negotiate for the

[ Page 2383 ]

CNR's rates. We have our own position in negotiations on a

large number of things. Negotiations were being entered into by

the previous administration and we have altered those

negotiations a bit, but the negotiations are continuing.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't quite see how this relates to the

jurisdiction of the Government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neither do I.

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

Grey.

SUKUNKA COAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would ask the

House Leader (Hon. Mr. Barrett) if he would today give the

House some information, and so far he hasn't, concerning the

Sukunka coal negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members. I think there has got to be a

termination of the constant repetition of questions that have

been answered.

MR. GARDOM: He hasn't answered one yet.

MR. SPEAKER: He has answered the questions. The fact of the

matter is, under Beauchesne at p. 147, you are not permitted to

repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an

answer has been refused. And the Member keeps repeating the

same question.

MR. GARDOM: He can just update the House in the current

situation, Mr. Speaker. It's a perfectly valid question.

MR. SPEAKER: We would waste the time of the House when there

are other important questions being sought.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are continuing.

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

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT BUSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statement issued by him last Friday regarding

transit buses in the province, can I ask whether the municipalities concerned

will have the right to request or specify what type of vehicle they would like,

in particular in terms of width — I am thinking now

of the problem in Vancouver dealing with bridges — or whether or not the Government

intends to supply them with the buses they have on hand, which are something

else?

HON. MR. LORIMER: If the municipalities have a request, we

will listen to their request and we will cooperate with the

municipalities. I haven't received any requests up until now

about any of those matters you have raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

FLOODING AT MICA RESERVOIR

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a

question of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

who is also on the Hydro board. I understand the Mica reservoir

is now beginning to flood as of a few weeks ago. Do you feel

this has been adequately logged? Are we still going to go

through the same thing that we went through with the Peace, and

even 65 years ago with the Stave Lake?

The second part of my question is, do I understand bids are

in now for four of the six turbines? Can you make any comment

on those? Will the suppliers of these turbines be reliable

sources of parts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think one should ask one question at a

time, and if anything falls from that, further supplementaries.

The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Mica reservoir, the

dam was completed on March 29. With respect to the basin

itself, we are looking at an outside consulting study

proposal.

The powerhouse contract was let last week, I believe. I

would have to take the questions of turbines themselves as

notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question on the Mica Dam. Could

you tell me just how much the water has risen? There appears to

be a fear of serious flooding behind the Mica Dam which was

sealed on March 29. How much has the water risen there and how

long will it take for the basin to fill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that was the purpose of the dam,

if I remember correctly. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Can the Minister give us some

idea of how long it will take

[ Page

2384 ]

to fill up the basin behind Mica Dam?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have that information at

hand.

MR. CHABOT: Would you say 8 to 10 years is a pretty fair

guess?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't guess on a thing like that.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move we proceed to public bills

and orders.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading on Bill No. 149, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Members are aware, this Act

provides a grant of up to $1,000 or a second mortgage loan of

up to $5,000 for residents purchasing a new home in the

province, and a grant of up to $500 or a second mortgage loan

of up to $2,500 for residents who previously rented in the

province to buy an older home in the province.

The proposed amendment is to ensure that these benefits are

available to Indians who wish to purchase a home on a reserve;

in addition, to protect the moneys owing the Home Acquisition

Fund. The power of the Minister to collect moneys owing is

broadened in a similar manner to collection purposes now

included in most provincial taxation statutes.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, also has a provision that gives

retroactivity to it, going back to 1966. While the question of

retroactive legislation is generally attacked, there are

specific instances where retroactivity must be brought in to

provide a correction for an improper Act or what we think may

be an improper application of

an Act.

This Act has been unfair up till now, Mr. Speaker, in that

native Indians were discriminated against by an official

policy, and I think that is a mark against all of us — not just

those who formulated the policy of such discrimination, but for

the rest of us in the province who have had to live with

it.

I'm very, very pleased that on an occasion like this,

government can sometimes take a direct step in correcting

something that was wrong, something that was

discriminatory.

I want to suggest to the native Indian people of this province that when these

cheques come out, we would welcome any group request to have the cheques come

in a group as was proposed to us by the Haida Indians from the Charlottes. We

would welcome any request they have in the direction of the use of those funds,

if they agree, in terms of a capital purpose or any

bulk purchasing they may wish to do. For example, it is my impression that some

of the people who are eligible are interested in buying furniture for their

homes or improving their homes, and if they purchase as a group, the prices

they purchase for will be lower.

I am sure the House would agree that we would allow the

regulations to bend so that these people can use the funds as

they see fit as individuals or voluntarily see fit as groups.

So I am publicly now asking the other native Indians, along

with the Queen Charlotte people, to send down any suggestions

or requests that they have on these funds.

I move second reading.

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

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, this is one of

those very, very rare and few satisfactions of an Opposition

Member. As the older Members of the House do know, this has

been a measure that has been proposed over here since the

inception of this statute by a multitude of speeches and

amendments to these statutes and also by private Members'

bills. We thoroughly support the position of the Government and

the direction indicated by the Premier when he opened the

debate.

I think over and above, though, it would be terribly

beneficial to the Indian community and terribly beneficial to

the Province of B.C. from a social point of view that we

continue to correct those injustices which still exist. There

is no reason that I know why all of the services that surround

an Indian reserve are not able to be provided to an Indian

reserve.

I think that should be the direction of the Government.

Secondly, the per capita grants in this session are

increasing from $30 to $32 which is far lower than they should

be increasing to. I would advocate that these per capita

municipal grants be made available to self-governing Indian

bands. Of the approximately 192 bands we do have in the

province, about 159 of those have some form of self-government.

I advocate that they be entitled to receive those grants.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, other provinces in Canada have seen

their way clear to grant reserve Indian bands a fair share of

the municipal taxes or provincial taxes that are collected from

a non-occupier of Indian land. And I notice I have the

Premier's attention.

It is true that Indian reserve lands are not subject to

income tax. However, when a band or a locatee of a band

surrenders his interest and leases it to someone who is

non-Indian, at that point it immediately becomes taxable

either to the province or taxable to the municipality if the

band happens to be within the confines of a municipality.

[ Page 2385 ]

We find in Saskatchewan that 50 per cent of the taxes a

municipality collects from an occupier of Indian land is

transferred back to the band. We find even a more generous

situation in Alberta whereby this taxpaying occupier of Indian

land is granted a total exemption from municipal taxes in order

to provide a better rent, a better deal to the reserve Indian

from whom he may rent his land.

Lastly, I enjoyed the remarks of the Premier indicating that

the Indian people who will be able to qualify under this

retroactive legislation will be able to have some options and

freedom concerning the use of the money. The Premier said yes,

if they needed furnishings they could buy that. Well, I'd like

him to go the next step.

In the Province of Ontario — it's a very good illustration —

they relieve a reserve Indian from the payment of sales tax

providing the

article is purchased for the use on the reserve.

So in your furniture example they would obviously be buying

furniture for their homes in their reserve and there is no

reason that I know why they should have to pay 5 per cent tax

on it when just with a little snap of the fingers, Mr. Premier,

you would quite be able to eradicate that tax.

What we are trying to push for here, and what I've been

advocating since I've been a Member of this House, is to cure

social injustice. Let's get on with it a little more quickly

than we have.

This is a first-class measure and I'm delighted to see

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

rise to make a short statement in support of this bill.

The object of the Provincial Home Acquisition Act was

to encourage people to own their own homes, Mr. Speaker. This

principle was abandoned, however, when the benefits of the Act

were refused to the Indian people living on reserves in British

Columbia.

The past government's reasons for not making this grant

available for Indian people living on reserves was that since

Indian reserves are under the federal Indian Act, the province

does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the measure.

Secondly, reserve Indians would not be subject to land tax.

Well, let's look at this for a second. An Indian does not

have to pay any income tax on income earned on a reserve. This

is hardly ever applicable because the income British Columbian

Indians earn, they earn in the various locations off the

reserve, Mr. Speaker, not on the reserve.

Indian people are not liable for land tax for their reserve houses. Again,

this should not be of concern because there are thousands of homeowners in the

Province of British Columbia who, by virtue of the Home-owners' Grant, don't

pay any land tax at all. The location of almost all Indian reserve lands would

place them in this non-payment category.

It must be remembered that Indian people pay just the same

taxes as any other British Columbia citizen — the 5 per cent

provincial sales tax, the motor vehicle users tax, the tax on

building materials and a host of others.

In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, one small reserve of less

than 400 people — the Sechelt Indian Reserve — it has been

estimated that over a four-year period they have paid over

$101,000 in provincial taxes.

Improved housing is one of the greatest needs of Indian

people in this province today. Our Government is willing to do

everything it can to foster the principles of such a

programme.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we

have stated in the House already that housing and education of

the Indians are indeed very obviously the biggest need. I want

to say that this party strongly supports the measure

introduced.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members

for their comments. The point made by the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey concerning the 5 per cent sales tax — stores already operating on the reserve do not charge 5 per

cent sales tax. Those are sales that are made on the

reserve.

But to ask, Mr. Member, that the 5 per cent sales tax be

taken off the native Indians on this furniture…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That, to me, Mr. Member, is a reverse form

of discrimination. All people should pay taxes equally and

receive benefits from taxation equally, regardless of race,

creed, colour and anything else. To eliminate a group because

they are native Indians — or to exclude them because they are

native Indians — is a mistake. We're talking about citizens of

British Columbia. Every citizen should have equal access to the

services of this province.

A native Indian who owns a car and who drives on the roads

should pay a licence and he should pay 5 per cent sales tax on

his car. He should pay 5 per cent sales tax on his tires. When

he drives to his home he should have the home acquisition grant

on his home. It's equality that we're looking for, not any

separation in any way possible.

So, Mr. Member, I just can't buy your argument.

[ Page 2386 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if they're municipalities that's

something to consider. But to my knowledge not one of them is

in a municipality yet. I think there was a dispute over the one

on Vancouver Island. I don't think that's been resolved. But

they had a close vote, as I understand it.

I am very, very pleased with the positive response. I'm

pleased, too, with the response from that Member about the use

of the funds for furniture. But I want to make it very clear

that each individual who is eligible for these funds of course

has the right of determination of how these funds are to be

used.

If a band or council or reserve representative gets

signatures of agreement of groups of people so that the funds

can be used in a common purpose — that is to buy furniture in

bulk or for home improvements on a bulk basis or something like

that — then it's my assumption that the House is in favour if

it's voluntarily decided by each individual in that

community.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's retroactive money, that's

correct.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Forward is for houses only. That's

retroactive money.

Now if one individual wants to opt out, they have that

right. Certainly they can have the retroactive money and spend

it as they wish. But the people from Masset made the point that

they'd be better to buy as a group in bulk purchasing. I said

that we would go along with that if we had written agreement by

everybody who wanted to so purchase. So away they go.

It's a good day. It's something decent that we've done

today. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 149 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 150, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LOGGING TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Logging Tax Act imposes a 15 per

cent tax on net profits from logging operations in the province where the profits

exceed $10,000 a year. Where a company also processes

the logs after cutting the timber the total profit from all the operations is

subject to tax.

The Act allows a processing allowance to be deducted. That

is in line with our philosophy about the application of labour

to raw materials.

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision has ruled

the the Act is not clear on the taxing of certain processing

procedures which could considerably affect the revenues

received by the province from this tax. The intent of the

Logging Tax Act since its inception has been to tax all

profits received by a company from logging operations,

including the profits received from further processing into

products after the processing allowance has been made.

It has been so administered and the tax has been so

paid.

The amendment proposed in this bill results from the court

of appeal decision and is intended to make this tax policy

clear. While this bill is made retroactive to January 1, 1972, I would emphasize that it does not alter the tax policy that

has been in effect since the inception of the Act. Rather it

clarifies the policy.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 150 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 151, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH

COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the

authorized borrowing powers of the British Columbia Railway

Company from $340 million to $440 million. The increase is

necessary in order that the company may continue its line

extension programme, continue with improvements to the present

line and acquire the additional equipment made necessary by the

considerable increase in traffic, such as boxcars.

The authorization is also necessary so the railway can plan

its capital expenditure programme in advance and the sums

required may be borrowed over the years ahead. The provincial

government is planning now for projects in the future and,

while the authorization is not required now, the government

does not want it to be hindered in these plans by a lack of

borrowing authorization.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we complete our

negotiations with the CNR we will announce quickly exactly what

specific proposals we've agreed

[ Page 2387 ]

upon, what new areas of construction and what our programme

is. The authorization will be there so that we can carry

on.

It's a new era of co-operation with the CN. I'm hoping that

the negotiations will be fruitful. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. On

this increase of $100 million, have you any breakdown as to

equipment and construction — how it breaks down?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

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

party will support this bill. We agree that the British

Columbia Railway must have adequate borrowing powers to

undertake its expansion in the north. We think the Premier has

interesting plans for integration of the railroad facilities in

north-west British Columbia and that the net effect of this is

going to make natural resources that were not viable before

viable in the future, providing resource taxation doesn't make

it impossible again.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some comments, however, about the

methods of financing of the railway and the interaction with

the Legislature of British Columbia. Of course I refer to the

Premier's statements today that there was a very definite

capital budget of the B.C. Railway, a need for them to plan in

advance what their borrowings would be. But, Mr. Speaker, we

have never seen such a budget in this Legislative Assembly.

We've only had the word of yourself and the vice-president of

the railway, Mr. Broadbent, that such a budget exists and that

they adhere very closely to it.

If we're going to borrow the money for expansion of the B.C.

Railway by using surplus tax funds, then I think it important

that the budget of the B.C. Railway be laid before the House so

that a decision can be made as to what taxes will be necessary

for the financing of the railway each year when the budget is

presented.

As far as the expenditures themselves are concerned, Mr.

Speaker, I was disappointed at the time that the executives of

the B.C. Railway appeared before the Public Accounts Committee

to learn that they do their engineering prior to the laying of

the track in a very limited way; when the tenders are actually

called, that they're called on a unit basis with almost a

minimum upset figure as being the limit set by the railroad in

laying the tender out.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a practice which should be questioned in

the Legislature. It was this very sort of approach

which led to the famous highways investigation years ago, before I sat on the

committee, where the then Leader of the Opposition was the leading proponent

of changes in the way highway contracts should be let. The present Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), seemed far less interested in those principles

at the Public Accounts Committee meeting as a Member of the Government. Mr.

Speaker, we should be prepared — just an observation —

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Oh go on with

you. Take that back, you're a brain surgeon but you don't know

anything about brains.

MR. McGEER: My goodness me, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Highways is very twitchy this afternoon. I'm merely observing a

change in his outlook. I thought that the Minister of Highways

was a perfectly consistent individual and that he would show

the same bird-dogging attitude as a member of the Public

Accounts Committee on the Government side that he did as an

investigator on the Opposition side. Some veteran members of

the House remember that spectacular inquiry.

What it had as its basis, Mr. Speaker, was a failure to do

tight engineering work to begin with, and then to have the

contract itself follow that engineering work. I would hope with

some of this borrowing power of the B.C. Railway, we would beef

up the engineering staff of the B.C. Railway, so that thorough

investigations would be done before the contracts were set.

Then when tenders are called, one will have an idea that the

contract itself, the actual amount of money that is paid, will

bear some relationship to the budget that is set out in the

tender.

The suggestion was made at the committee meeting, Mr.

Speaker, that the firms that bid had a good idea that they

would have to move far more material than the contract actually

called for. Therefore it was possible for them to bid lower on

a unit basis.

But the question that was left in my mind, and perhaps in

the minds of many people who were there, was why the contractor

should be so aware of those things when the tenderer isn't. How

is it the contractor can do greater engineering than the

railway itself? So with this borrowing power, Mr. Speaker, I

would hope that part of it would go to increased engineering

staff on B.C. Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the purpose of this bill deals

with borrowing power. But if it comes down to how many cups of

sugar that the cook uses on the railway, I think it's beyond

the power of the bill — or how they tender, or what they do in

regard to the ordinary operation of the railway. I would ask

the

[ Page 2388 ]

Hon. Member to try somehow to relate his words to the

problem of borrowing money.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, Sir,

expenses are high in the north — but we're talking about things

that ran into millions of dollars and that's more than just a

cup of tea. You know, this only applies for an extra $100

million, and at that rate it would only be 10 cups of tea.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us in this

Legislature to scrutinize expenditures carefully, without being

picayune in any way, but to be watchful when the principles on

which the Legislature and the Government operate are not up to

the highest possible standards.

All that I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is to have our

Crown corporations operating in exactly the same fashion as

does the Legislative Assembly itself, with the budget clearly

laid before the Members with the integration of finances to the

extent they must be integrated, fully and openly declared and

with the same kinds of supervision of the expenditures in those

Crown corporations that we have in the government operations

themselves.

That does not mean that we should discuss individual

vouchers in this House, but it means that we should have

knowledge if some bird-dogging member of the Public Accounts

Committee, like the Minister of Highways used to be…that he

could make that pursuit and we would then know that the

operations of our public corporations were of the highest

possible standard, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we'll support this bill, but

it's our desire to see things get even better in a financial

way in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill also, clearly

on the basis that we recognize that the successful development

of our resources depends so intimately on transportation

facilities. We've had very recent reminders of that.

The explanatory notes certainly are not part of the

legislation, but they mention $1 million instead of $100

million. I think it should just be put on the record that the

explanatory notes on the bill are out by $99 million.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought you said that you were not going

to be picayune. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, we cannot give a

breakdown on the equipment until we complete the negotiations.

Then we know exactly what we have to buy and what our share is

and what's involved.

The Member mentioned that we need to spend the money to get

the railroad to the resources. I like to follow the logic

through the next step. The resources are open and people have

jobs and industry a profit. Then we need to tax industry so

that we can build the railroad further into the resources.

It just can't be isolated, Mr. Member. You can't tax the

working people to build the railroad into the resources and not

tax the resources. So I'm sure the financial pages of both the

Vancouver Sun and Province and the Victoria Daily Colonist and

Times will now write a column saying that the Liberals don't

know what they're talking about — because you have to tax the

resource base —

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

dollars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, and we have to pay the money back

that we're borrowing, don't we? Certainly and the people have

to pay it back. And the rich corporations should help pay their

share because they have made profits off the access to the

resources.

I just don't understand you fellows. You want to soak the

poor and leave the rich all alone. The people of this province

have to borrow the money to get the railroad into the resources

so the rich get richer and the poor have more debts. B.C. Rail — who owns B.C. Rail? It's a publicly-owned railroad. O.K. —

and the people have to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make some profit, pay it back. Raise the

freight rate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you that B.C. Rail

can only make a profit when we start getting a better return

on the resources that we're opening through the use of the

rail. Raise the freight rates and then you'll be in here voting

against the bill that raises the freight rates because…you'll be complaining about that. All you do is cry, cry and

cry against big business; but when it comes to the people of

this province having to borrow money to serve big business,

that they are representing, what do they do about it? They

don't like it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on; this is a socialist

enterprise; the B.C. Railroad, and we support it as a straight

example of socialism. If you want to vote against socialism,

you vote against this bill today. Call a division so that we

can go on and say you're consistent, that you voted against the

socialist railroad. But if you don't vote against the railroad,

then we'll tell people that you're really socialists at heart,

but you really believe that the rich should benefit from this

kind of socialism and not the poor.

[ Page 2389 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You're all mixed up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member says I'm all mixed up. You see,

his approach to this is this way: socialism means that the

taxpayers should finance through borrowings all the losing

facilities to enhance the development of resources so that rich

private corporations can make the money — but that MacMillan

Bloedel and the others don't build the railroad in there. No,

no, no, at the end of the railroad they dig the stuff out of

the ground or cut the trees, put it on the railroad that the

people paid for and they can take their profits away. That's an

old game. It was O.K., but it's over now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, we saw who you voted for earlier

today, Mr. Member, and I'm not going to reflect in this House

on that vote — not in this House. (Laughter). But I'll tell you

there'll be a lot of places where I'll be reflecting on it.

I'll just hold up the old Journal and say, "There it is.

Guess who voted for what."

MR. McGEER: You'll throw books into the audience.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I won't throw books in the audience

because I love the people.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): They don't

love you anymore. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you must pay heed to what he said,

because he's an expert on people love. Look what happened to

him last August. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those people who are condemned to live in

the past. Memories, memories.

Now on to the future, Mr. Speaker. I ask the House to

support the future of British Columbia and to support this

bill.

One comment I do want to make — it was very well made by the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey in terms of the financing in terms of construction engineering. When we

came to power we found that the former administration was very, very backward

in its use of competition on bidding. In terms of Crown corporations, they were

allowing the contracts to go out without adapting any of their bidding approaches

to save people money. As a result we found when we came to office that certain

contracts were being drawn up for B.C. Hydro that, without target bidding

processes that are modern business methods, would have cost the taxpayers

a great deal more than necessary. Therefore, we withdrew those contracts, went

on to target bidding, and we've saved the people of British Columbia, with good

business sense, tens of millions of dollars that would have been wasted under

Social Credit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT : Yes, Mr. Speaker, under the old system

when you waited to get the final bill we used to get taken to

court because they had poor lawyers drawing up the contracts. I

remember that bridge in my own… Oh, we won't go into that. I

want you to have happy memories.

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading I want to remind the

Member for Point Grey that I've asked for an internal audit of

the B.C. Rail. As soon as the report is in we will make the

modifications. I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 151 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 159, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE

SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. F. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Bill No.

159 is

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation

Act . The House, I am sure, will bear with me because when

one does amend a pension Act it looks as though one is dealing

with a subject which is a little intricate. Secondly, the

principle of the bill is not necessarily affected by the

amendments. Perhaps some of the detailed discussion can best be

left until committee stage.

However, I do want to introduce the bill and give a broad

description to the Members of the House.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker — one of four — to bring into

effect the Government's policy of moving forward on a broad

front to provide pension plans among the best in Canada for

employees working in the public sector in British Columbia.

The policies are to be implemented in three stages. The

first stage is being presented to you in this bill. Our medium

and long-range policies will be in the form of further

amendments during the next few years.

I should add to that remark, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the

end results on your desk in the form of Bills 159 through to

162 are the products of consultative work by the commissioner

of pensions together with

[ Page 2390 ]

the employees and employers in the public sector.

The amendments in the bill are designed to compensate for

the change in the cost of living since 1971, when the last

increase in pensions was granted. The 2 per cent formula was

introduced for this plan in 1958. Since that time increases

largely based on the cost of living were worked out between

representatives of the British Columbia Government Retired

Employees Association and the staff of the Superannuation

Branch. These discussions led to increases in 1966, 1968, 1970

and 1971.

Accordingly, the amendments in this bill will keep payments

current while investigations are continued in cooperation with

other interested groups to develop a practical and effective

means of protecting pensioners from the erosion of their

purchasing power due to price increases beyond their

control.

For active contributors the bill provides improvement for

everyone by reducing the averaging period from seven years to

five years on the same basis as the changes in the other plans.

The bill brings into effect a uniform contribution rate of 6

per cent of salary for all employees on the same basis as the

other plans that the department administers. The change will be

an important one, particularly for those in the lower salary

ranges, where the former contribution rate of 10 per cent was

difficult to meet.

However, the most important effect of the change is that

those electing early retirement will not be in a position to

receive the full 2 per cent formula pension after age 60 and

the reduction for retirement between the ages of 55 and 60 is

not so great.

May I also add there, Mr. Speaker, that part of the

medium-range plan is to receive information, opinion — the

current word is "input" — to the department from all the

participants in the four plans regarding early retirement.

Because while we all agree that early retirement, whether

brought about by shorter hours, shorter weeks, months or years,

is a good thing to attain, of course, you can't really get into

that good position unless you've got a first-class pension plan

to support it. We need to know what the employees and employers

themselves think about early retirement problems and the way it

can best be introduced.

This change in Bill 159 has also made it possible to bring

into effect complete portability on a reciprocal basis with the

various other public plans in B.C. Pensions will no longer be

an important consideration for employees moving from one sector

of the public service to another.

The maximum contribution paid has been changed to ensure

uniformity by requiring every employee to contribute throughout

his service. Where that service exceeds 35 years the employee

will receive on retirement a refund of his earlier

contributions with 6 per cent compound interest.

I've dealt with portability, but I will say that our objective is to ensure

that service in one of the plans is equal or equivalent to the service in any

of the other plans where an employee moves from one to another with a break

in terms of public service of less than three years. Death, in-service benefits

are to be provided for widows and widowers on the same basis and the provision

terminating benefits on remarriage is removed.

The investment provisions have been broadened to conform

with the changes contained in Bill 74, amending the Revenue

Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of the House that

I realize the difficulty at times in dealing with some pension

legislation and my staff stand ready at any time to assist any

Members in any inquiries they may have on this bill. I will be

prepared, of course, to engage in full debate, perhaps in a

more manageable form, in committee stage.

I therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would share the Provincial Secretary's view. We will be putting

amendments on the order paper for third reading.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that these bills,

these amendments to the pensions, just like Bill 74, which was

referred to by the Provincial Secretary, go a long way to

removing the security in our opinion from the present pension

plans.

I realize that there will likely be a great deal of

responsibility in the investments, right now at least, but I

don't think, Mr. Speaker, that we can trust the security of all

of those people who are directly involved in it, who are

directly under the wing of the provincial government, to the

vagaries of the market place. The Premier has insisted that he

wouldn't play the market with these kinds of funds, but how do

we know whether the next Premier may play the market? If the

market is subject to fluctuation, what happens to all of that

money that is invested on behalf of the civil servants?

We deserve answers, I think, to the question, Mr. Speaker:

where will those investments be made? In what kinds of

companies will those investments be made?

I'd suggest that perhaps the people whose security is

involved here right now must feel fairly uneasy, because they

don't know what kinds of investments will be made. The

guarantee has certainly been taken away from their security.

We're going to have the right to invest in any kind of

corporation anywhere, not even limited to British Columbia.

The Premier, when the amendments were first introduced, was

quoted as saying in the Press that he intends to invest only in

blue chip corporations. Well, a blue chip corporation today may

be a complete and utter disaster tomorrow. We've seen that

happen in

[ Page

2391 ]

many instances.

The Premier also said "maybe" we'll invest in Crown

corporations. Well, I'd say the same thing, because those Crown

corporations may not be on as solid ground as we might hope

they would be. If we invest in a Crown corporation that's

controlling the Ocean Falls operation or the Prince Rupert

operation that's recently been taken over by the provincial

government, can we be accused of pouring good money after bad

once again? This time we're not using my money or your money in

the form of taxation; we're using money put aside by the civil

servants of British Columbia to be invested at the best

possible guarantee secured. The Premier as Finance Minister

will have sole discretionary power in choosing these

investments.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair].

As I say, that may be all right now, but what about in the

future? Should that sole discretionary power to invest in any

kind of corporation anywhere in the world, I guess, be left in

the hands of the Finance Minister?

Madam Speaker, the question was raised late on Friday in

this House about what kind of investment advice will the

Finance Minister be seeking? What will be the advice received

by the Government? Who is going to give that advice? Are we

going to hire a competent investment analyst to tell us where

we should be investing that money or are we going to play it by

the seat of our pants and just invest the money where the whim

desires?

Are we in fact going to be taking flyers on corporate

bankrupts and other kinds of failures? The danger is certainly

there, and we are leaving this wide open to all kinds of

abuses, Madam Speaker.

I'd suggest, Madam Speaker, that these kinds of funds:

pension funds for our civil servants, our teachers, and others,

need to have the maximum protection possible. We certainly owe

that to the thousands of people, Madam Speaker, who are

involved here. But instead, here we are with one fell swoop of

the pen taking away all of those guarantees. Yes, it's carte

blanche legislation and, as I said on Friday, it could turn out

to be bail-out legislation.

But even worse than the amendments that we passed on Friday

to Bill 74, we are now toying and playing around with the money

invested by the thousands of civil servants in this province —

the money that they hope to stake the rest of their life

on.

Madam Speaker, we are gambling with somebody else's money

and it's pretty easy to be a high-roller when you don't have to

pay the consequences and when the stakes are put up by somebody

else. That kind of gambling is easy when you don't have

anything to lose.

But I'd like to remind the House, Madam Speaker, that if

that gamble doesn't pay off we'll have thousands and thousands

of civil servants whose whole life security will be

threatened.

I don't think that's the kind of thing we want for British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Based on the remarks made by the Hon. Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall), we will support this long-awaited change in

this particular superannuation legislation.

I know that the Hon. Provincial Secretary was reading from

some prepared notes and I wonder if it might be possible if he

would circulate those before we come to the committee stage. I

think it would be of assistance in really understanding the

direction that the Government is taking the House in respect of

this and the other superannuation bills which are to come

before us.

I, too, must raise questions about the significant change

which will permit the investment of the superannuation moneys

in the shares of corporations. It is a significant change, one

which I think in general principle should not be denied to the

investment of these moneys. If there is an opportunity of

greater return to the pension fund through the investment in

equities rather than bonds, then by all means the funds should

have that opportunity. This is found in the private sector and

there is no reason that the public sector shouldn't be treated

in the same way.

In that connection I find myself in some disagreement with

some of the comments from the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland). However, it occurs to me that when making this

step, the Government could in this particular legislation have

drawn some boundaries, established some guidelines which would

themselves limit the Minister of Finance in the selection of

the corporations in which the funds may be invested.

There are a number of examples in the Canadian and British

Insurance company legislation which is federal. The right of

investment in the securities of such companies are clearly

spelled out and it seems to me that something of this nature

could have been incorporated in this legislation; such matters

as proven dividend record and appropriate relationship between

capital and debt. Many limitations would ensure that the

investment of these funds in equities would be safe, secure,

and at the same time give the fund the opportunity to grow as

the economy of the province and of the nation grows.

To put it in a word, it would define what is "blue-chip,

" to use the expression of the Minister of Finance. With

this change I think that the fund itself

[ Page 2392 ]

would be more secure and the investment opportunities

properly broadened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Okanagan.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Madam Speaker, the official Opposition

will vote for the principle of this bill but will offer

amendments in committee.

I would just point out to the Government, through you Madam

Speaker, the great danger of making investments in common

shares from the pension funds. Today a company is a blue-chip

company; a year or two from now it's not a blue-chip company.

Penn Rail, United States; I could go through them by the dozens — even that big railroad, one of the finest corporations in our

country, the Canadian Pacific Railway.

At one time its employees wanted shares in that fine

corporation and the CPR sold these shares to its employees at

lower than market values to let them get in on some of the

ownership and profits of the railway. When difficult days

arrived, those shares went down so far, Madam Speaker, that

many of the employees thought the CPR had deliberately loaded

these shares onto the workers and that argument was used right

across this whole nation. Of course they didn't, but I am only

pointing out the danger of your economy.

In North America especially, since the last war, we've had

one continuous boom with a few little dips, but a continuous

upward movement — the longest period of advance of markets in

the world's history, the longest period of comparatively good

times, the best times. Not for everybody but for the average in

all the world's history.

Everybody knows that which goes up will sometimes come down.

Therefore I point out the great danger in this because we are,

in my opinion, not quite yet but not far from the top of the

boom, and there are going to be crashing stages take place.

When these crashing stages take place, there will be great

drops in the market and it will be too bad if these pension

funds were caught in that position.

Also, all companies with some exceptions are being caught

now in the cost-price squeeze: costs are going up very rapidly;

wages are going up very rapidly; other costs are all going up

very rapidly; taxes are going up rapidly. But the consumers

will not stand it forever and there will be resistance at the

market place by buyers. We see it now with the housewives

regarding beef and so forth. But they are not only opposed to

beef; they are opposed to other products too. And when that

strike or natural resistance develops in the marketplace, we

could bring an end to this forward movement in the boom. We

should have some very severe corrections take place.

And I want to be on record, Madam Speaker, of pointing out

these dangers at this particular time to the Government and ask

them to go slow in these types of investments. Slow indeed, and

keep the majority of the investments similar to what they've

made now under your own control.

Contrary to some of the arguments in this House, the

investments in your own Crown corporations such as Hydro, which

has been condemned in this House as putting pension funds in

Hydro, is the best investment you have for the pension funds — guaranteed by the Government of this province. You have some

control over that.

But some of these other companies you invest in can have

change in management and everything else. I'm not even

referring to the change in management in Government, which is

always risky, Madam Chairman. But I'm not in a critical mood

today. Not at all.

I just want to say again that the official Opposition will

vote for the bill, we'll move certain amendments in committee,

and I speak only to warn the Government regarding this change

in policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, as was indicated earlier

by the Member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), we

intend to vote in favour of this bill in principle.

The real concern we have is that governments of all stripes,

of all persuasions, in all parts of Canada have shown a

considerable lack of ability to determine what are and what are

not profitable and good corporations from the point of view of

investment. Therefore we feel that some restriction should be

placed on the provision which allows virtually unlimited

investment in any corporation.

Examples come to mind. There's a fiberboard factory in

Newfoundland that's losing them, I think, $220 million. They're

a relatively poor province going broke because of that.

Manitoba has its problems in the north, where $10 million of a

$50 million loan happened to wind up in Switzerland. No one's

discovered how or why. Alberta's losing money hand over fist on

a railroad in the north. There are examples from

Saskatchewan.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

mentions that only our Crown corporations are good. But he's a

great defender of those and I'll leave that up to him.

Another NDP province, namely Saskatchewan, had shoe

factories and box factories and other things. I believe that

the problem is that there is a temptation

[ Page 2393 ]

to show the faith in a corporation in which the government

is interested by putting into the same type of corporation

other moneys, which may not be directly public moneys but may

be civil servants' or teachers' pension fund money. It makes

sense. If the government is convinced that something will

survive, then it will put in more than its own money. It will

put in other people's money, if it has control of it.

Flyer Industries, now making buses for the Province of

British Columbia, lost half a million dollars on its last year

of reported operations. Yet it's 74 per cent owned by a

Manitoba Crown corporation. My fear is that investment

decisions may well be coloured by political considerations.

This is just about unavoidable when the person responsible for

making such decisions spends most of his time as a

politician.

I say this with no criticism of the present Minister of

Finance, (Hon. Mr. Barrett) or the previous one or the future

one. It's simply a fact of life. They spend their time as

politicians and when they're involved in other discussions and

negotiations the tendency is for much of the views that are put

forward to be in their minds when they're discussing investment

of the pension funds, such as the one we're dealing with

now.

Our view is that this bill should be amended at the

committee stage to put in some provision protecting the

pensioner, some provision protecting his or her money. The

Government has the view that all legislation is to be handled

only by the present Ministers. We've heard that time after time — that, "Oh, no. You won't have to worry about that. Even

though it could happen under the legislation, we don't intend

to do it that way." Well, that's well and good but in human

events and politics in particular, change is fairly regular and

a great deal more frequent than many of us like.

It is a fact that if we set up sloppy legislation which

gives powers that are too far-ranging, we are responsible. It's

no excuse to say, "We were told by the Minister that he

wouldn't use the excessive powers that

an Act gave him." Here,

where we're dealing with the future security of many people who

have no other way of protecting themselves against the future,

I believe we have to do a great deal more than this bill would

suggest.

At a later date we have to write into it guarantees dealing

with the type of corporation that could be the recipient of

pension moneys. Mr. Speaker, we trust that the Government

itself will be amending this bill along those lines. We don't

think that's a question of principle and therefore we'll vote

for it at this time. But we certainly hope that amendments will

be forthcoming, which the Government itself will bring forward

or, if not, will support when they come from the Opposition,

dealing with the guarantees that are necessary for civil

servants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Madam Speaker, frankly I'm

surprised that the Premier wants this kind of freedom to invest

the funds. I think it's kind of fun to play with other people's

money. But this is one of the bills where the Premier is now

beginning to play with his own money. I find that a little more

surprising. Obviously, some of his pension money could be

controlled in this bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Well, that's possible but that's an assumption

I'm prepared to make.

It also indicates to me some underlying fundamental

assumptions in this bill. One of them is that the Minister of

Finance indicates rather clearly that inflation is not likely

to be controlled, either in Canada or by this Government. For

those reasons he feels that equity is necessary in these funds

to keep up with inflation. As a number of other speakers have

said earlier, when you begin to get into equity funds, so

often what goes up goes down. Often when it goes down, it goes

down with a great deal more speed than it went up. I'm

surprised that bonds and such other securities in blue-chip

corporations, which in the past have been considered as

adequate for security, will now be by-passed in the opportunity

to invest in corporations.

It's a rather serious bill. I'm frankly quite concerned

about the responsibility of the funds of the people that will

be invested in that

section of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Madam Speaker, as the former speakers in our

party have indicated, we support most of the provisions of this

bill. But there is this one

section which, through you, we draw

once again to the attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall).

This is the

section which permits the people's pension funds

to be invested in the capital stock of any corporation. I

agreed wholeheartedly with the remarks of the former Premier,

Madam Speaker. I did find them a little hard to listen to

because it was he who came into this House advocating that this

same fund be used to purchase stock in a corporation. It was a

particular corporation, a favourite of the Premier — the Bank

of British Columbia.

Questions by the former Leader of the Opposition and now

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) clearly showed that

the pension fund was used to support the market price of the

Bank of British Columbia shares. When they started to slip on

the

[ Page 2394 ]

market, the Minister of Finance bought the shares up and

kept the price high.

AN HON. MEMBER: The dividends were 10 cents a share.

MR. McGEER: I think that the Member followed it more closely

than I did.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked to have the former Premier, the

man who introduced this scheme of using pension funds to invest

in the stock of a corporation, now standing up and saying it

was wrong. He was right in Opposition but wrong in

Government.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says that there's a big

difference. Well, Madam Speaker, what happened is what bothers

me most about this particular

section and the legislation. That

is, the Minister of Finance used the civil servants'

superannuation fund — the now Leader of the Opposition, when he

was Minister of Finance — to support a corporation that was his

favourite. In other words, there was favoritism and prejudice

in the investment of other people's money.

I'm sure that the Minister of Finance thought at that time

that he was making a sound investment on behalf of the people.

But the fact remains that at that particular juncture, the Bank

of British Columbia, as an investment, was the least attractive

of any bank stock in Canada. Whatever ambitions any of us might

have had for that particular corporation, strictly as an

investment, it was the poorest of the bank stocks to

purchase.

MR. FRASER: That was the Liberals' fault…

MR. McGEER: Well, all I want the Member to agree on with me,

Madam Speaker, is that it was a poor investment for banks. If

the government is in a position of investing pension funds,

then it is apt to use political considerations rather than

economic ones in the choice of the investment.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

I don't believe that is acceptable even for surplus funds

from consolidated revenue but it is certainly unacceptable as

far as pension funds are concerned. These aren't surplus funds;

they are moneys, Mr. Speaker, given to the government in trust.

They are the contributed funds of people who are servants and

are allowed to speak out politically when abuses of their

contributions might be contemplated. Who knows that better than

the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who got fired for making political

statements when he was a civil servant.

If the people who are the contributors of the civil servants' superannuation

fund were to speak out in criticism of the Government,

then, of course, they could be fired. So how can they defend the rights of their

money? They can't.

You don't see this kind of provision in the teachers'

pension fund; you'd better believe there would be a howl if it

appeared there. No, you take the civil servants'. You're going

to use their money.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose of all the people on the Government

side, the one who disappoints me most for allowing this kind of

bill to reach the floor is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) who was formerly Leader of the Opposition. He could

see so clearly when he was in Opposition how wrong it was for

the civil service superannuation fund to be used to prop up an

investment that was the favourite of the Government. He saw it

so clearly that he led the investigation as to exactly how many

shares had been purchased by the Government to prop the price

up with the contributed funds of those poor civil servants who

cannot speak out on their own behalf.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, no sooner does he become a Member of the

Government than he abandons all his principles and brings in a

section that is even worse than what the former government

had.

Well, we'll see if he votes against the bill, if he shows

the same watch-dog determination in Government that he used to

show when he was a tiger on the Opposition benches. I can

understand, Mr. Speaker, a man becoming a tabby cat when he

crosses and gets into the warmth of power, but I hate to see a

man lose his principles in the process. Warm yourself at the

fire, yes, but don't abandon the great principles that you

developed over 20 years. You can't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that

there are any great principles in

section 15 of that bill.

All that it tells us is that the Government is going to have

its favourites for investment — just like every government will

have its favourites for investment. And Mr. Speaker, the

Government is going to have the darndest favourites. They are

all big losers. The justification made on the floor of the

House for these purchases are never economic reasons. It isn't

that these are great growth corporations that we just have to

get a share in because the value is going to go up many, many

fold. That is never the argument; it is always: "We have to

save some jobs. We have got to protect a community." We have to

back a loser.

However desirable it may be from a social point of view,

it's lousy economics and it's a lousy investment policy. Mr.

Speaker, when the Government has lousy investment policies, I

hate to see the people's pension funds being included in that.

Naturally we want to see increasing benefits to the civil

servants before the fund is gone. While it is there, let them

have a chance at it.

I have to go farther than the former Premier saying go slow

in this method of investing the proceeds of this fund in the

stock of any corporation. I say stop it

[ Page 2395 ]

altogether. Think a little bit about what you are opening

the door towards doing. You always think your decisions are so

good when you are in Government. The former government did, you

did, if we were government we would think the same way. We

would be certain that whatever corporations we were investing

in were the best corporations possible. Et cetera, et cetera,

et cetera…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Not this way. I can tell you that, Mr. Member,

not this way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Make up your mind.

MR. McGEER: Not this way. I think that if some of these

former Members of the Opposition with former great principles

would sit and think about what they are doing a little bit,

even if they considered their own judgment is infallible while

in office, maybe the judgment of those who follow after won't

be so infallible. The safeguards should be there for a less

able government than this one, if at the end of your term it

proves that such a thing is possible.

Mr. Speaker, something has been lost by these people who sat

on the Opposition side and now find themselves in power — no

more completely demonstrated than by the late, lamented

Opposition Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan). The

great thing that has been lost, Mr. Speaker, is principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): With respect to some of

the comments made on Bill No. 159, I should refer the Hon.

Members to

chapter 49 of the Statutes of Canada:

An Act to

Establish the Canada Development Corporation. I will just

briefly refer to two sections which have a direct relation to

this superannuation Act here, and how many are used.

First of all, the

section I wish to refer to is

section

7(l)(2), which indicates what power the development corporation

has. It has powers to invest in securities or shares of any

class issues by any corporation with share capital incorporated

under the laws of Canada or any province.

Part 11 of the Act,

section 35(l), states that the federal

government can participate from time to time in subscribing and

in the development corporation any may enter into any agreement

for the purchase of such shares.

Now the reason I outline that situation to the House is that if you examine

the liability side of the balance sheet as of March

employees was $1.6 billion during the year while the total increase in Government

of Canada debt obligations,

section 23, was $2.6 billion.

My contention is that the cash flow from employee

contributions is a highly significant and unrecognized

contributor to the financing of the activities of our senior

government through general revenue; in other words, through

such things as the Canada Development Corporation which is

permitted to invest in any capital stock of any corporation. In

other words, the Canadian government has been doing this for

years.

MR. McGEER: Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I find it extraordinary that the Member

who strayed quite a way off the bill himself now objects if

another Member wishes to stray back.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the point is this: by looking at

that, we find that not only is the investment of the Canada

Development Corporation financed through pension funds, in

effect, that the Canada Development Corporation is not

restricted in any way in its investments. That's only a minor

situation when we consider other areas of the federal

government and in other provinces in their investments.

It's also been brought to my attention that in 1964 there

was the first direct equity deal for both the CNR pension fund

and the Air Canada Fund. The CNR fund which now amounts to

$1,000 million is invested one-third in bonds, one-third in

equities and one-third in mortgages and real estate. This has

been going on for some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MR. LAUK: Real estate. Listen to what I'm saying and you'll

find out what I'm talking about. I refer also to a situation

which exists in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. I just

happened to find this Toronto Globe and Mail

article of

April 5 of this year:

"Common shares of Consolidated Bathurst Limited of Montreal

jumped 87 cents."

They go on to say why. There was an exchange and a deal

made, and the interesting paragraph for the Hon. Members is as

follows:

"The Company made the swap with the Quebec Deposit and Savings Fund, according to investment industry

sources, the fund that handles investments of the Quebec

Pension Plan."

Isn't that interesting? And that's been going on

in that province and in other provinces for a great many

[ Page 2396 ]

years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: The Liberal government in Quebec and the Liberal

government in the federal House, Mr. Speaker. The point that

was made, Mr. Speaker, is this — and I think it is a good point

made by the Member for South Okanagan: the boom and recession

fluctuation and the corrective market changes that are

anticipated are anticipated by the Government side of the

House, and it will be taken into consideration in investing.

It's ridiculous to say that they will not be because they will

be.

In effect then, this situation in British Columbia is being

brought into line with investment practices of pension funds in

other jurisdictions.

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

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I've listened carefully, and of

course the majority of the debate dealt with the amendment to

one

section regarding the ability now for the government to

invest these funds into a wider range of investments. Let me

first say to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) I will arrange to have duplicated the explanatory

notes and the second reading notes of the four bills to all

Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reject absolutely the speech from the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I had to control

myself a little when listening to him. First of all, the

premise he makes right off the bat was that we wouldn't have

dared to do this to anybody else. Mr. Member, read the bills

please. Every single pension plan contains this selfsame

amendment, including the teachers' plan, and was received

unanimously by the members on the negotiating committee of

those plans. If that's the level of research that's going on,

again I say, for the second sitting day on the run, it's a

pretty penny we may be wasting over there.

Secondly, he talks about principle. Mr. Speaker, this party

has engaged in elections since 1933 in which we have said

unequivocally that we will put the savings of the people to

work for the benefit of the people that live in the province

and in the country. If that's not what this amendment does, I

don't know what it does. Sanctimonious cant, Mr. Speaker, we

heard from that Member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the second remark, that was completely inaccurate

again, was from the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who again is so

frequently absolutely dead wrong when he rises to speak on a bill. He mentions

that we will be playing with our own money and made some slighting reference

to the Premier. He doesn't appear to know that there's an MLAs pension plan

which is not amended in this session, and that's where the money that he refers

to is found.

I will say however, that the remarks made by the Member for

South Okanagan (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) will be taken seriously.

They were delivered in a spirit of cooperation, delivered in a

spirit of constructive criticism to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there are many restrictions

placed upon the investments of this government in terms of

scrutiny, in terms of observance, in terms of the ability of

the Opposition to ask and make all the political heat and

effect they may. There is the question period, there are

questions to the Ministers. I'm quite prepared to table at the

beginning of every session a list of the investments in the

capital stocks from the pension fund.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that

now we have an active Treasury Board. You may read the Audit

Act and find out what their duties consist of. That's in

complete counterdistinction to the somnolent Treasury Board

which obviously occupied the Treasury benches in the previous

administration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention…and I want to

make this absolutely clear because the spreading of doom and

gloom of the opposition is getting me absolutely fed up — those

Members who want to go around spreading death and doom and

failure…let me say that

section 14 of the Civil Service

Superannuations says we "guarantee every pension fund in this

province." So don't ever suggest that the money will go away

down the drain.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HALL: Humbug. Mr. Speaker, I call the question on

the second reading of this bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 159 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading on Bill No. 160, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COLLEGE PENSION ACT

HON. MR. HALL:

An Act to Amend the College Pension

Act contains a number of the similar provisions. It's a

bill, one of four, to bring into effect this Government's

policy of moving forward on a broad front. These policies will

again be implemented in the same way as I mentioned in Bill

The provisions of the College Pension Act have always

been very similar to the college funding provisions of the

Teachers' Pensions Act , as many of

[ Page

2397 ]

the faculty members of the colleges were contributors to the

Teachers' Pensions Act immediately before their

appointments to college faculties.

For active contributors, the bill provides improvements for

everyone by reducing the average period from seven to five

years. Early retirement has been made more attractive. The bill

provides for one half of the pensioner's premiums to be paid

out of the employer contributions for those pensioners who

elect coverage on the Medical Services Plan of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, to speak of the same broad amendments to death

benefits, the disability provisions are provided in this

bill.

Portability is again covered, because this bill provides for

complete portability of pension benefits for employees moving

from one sector to another within British Columbia. This

principle will be extended to other jurisdictions if they are

willing to provide full portability on a reciprocal basis, and

Mr. Speaker, the investment provisions have been broadened to

conform with the changes contained in Bill 74 amending the

Revenue Act .

We are determined to ensure that employees who provide

dedicated and essential service in this province receive

retirement income commensurate with their length of service and

its value to the future development of the province. Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 160 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 161, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 161 is

An Act to

Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act . One of four, this is the

third. The amendments in this bill include substantial

improvements in pension benefits for contributors, former

contributors and their beneficiaries. For the pensioners, the

increases will range from 3 per cent for 1971 retirees to, in

steps of 3 per cent per year, a maximum increase of 66 per cent

for those who retired in 1950 and earlier.

The previous increases were designed to compensate for the

deficiencies in the original pension formula in effect when the

allowance was granted.

This is the first increase, Mr. Speaker, which has been designed to offset

the erosion in purchasing power which pensioners have suffered as a result of

changes which have taken place in wages and prices since their retirement. For

active contributors, the bill provides improvements

for everyone by reducing the average income period from seven to five years.

Retirement has been made more attractive and the vesting period is reduced from

20 to 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant principles

incorporated in this bill is gain the provision for complete

portability for employees moving from one public sector to

another. This principle will be extended to other jurisdictions

if they are willing to provide full benefits and full

portability on a reciprocal basis. Mr. Speaker, the provisions

are broadened as far as investments are concerned to conform

with Bill No. 74 amending the Revenue Act . I move second

reading of Bill No. 161.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment

and that's in reference to the provincial guarantee of the

pension funds. A guarantee is no good if the money goes down

the drain. There's no amount of fishing that will ever get it

back. I say once again that while you may invest only in

blue-chip corporations at this point, no one knows what kind of

a corporation that's going to be tomorrow or the next day or

the day after that. I caution once again, Mr. Speaker, that

that money, once it's lost, is lost, and all you can do is

continue to pour money after the money that's already gone.

I'd remind the House once again that we do have amendments

on the order paper to change these bills and to bring back some

form of guaranteed security with regard to investments.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again that

what I said is completely correct — the pension is

guaranteed.

HON. MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill 161 be read a

second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 161 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 162, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 162 is

An Act to

Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act . This is the fourth

bill which will bring into effect these common policies I've

mentioned this last little while. The amendments in this bill

are practically identical to the increases provided for retired

civil

[ Page 2398 ]

servants, the only difference being the calendar year which

is used in one compared to the fiscal year used in the

other.

In 1971 relatively large increases for both pensioners and

active contributors were provided by increased employer and

employee contributions. Accordingly, the increases provided in

this bill are primarily to compensate for the change in the

cost of living since 1971.

For active contributors the bill provides improvements for

everyone by reducing the averaging period from seven to five

years on the same basis as the changes in the other plans. The

bill includes a provision for one-half of the pensioner's

premium to be paid out of the employer contributions for those

pensioners who elect coverage by the Medical Services Plan of

B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the bill brings into effect a uniform

contribution rate of 6 per cent of salary for all employees on

the same basis as in the other plans. This increase is 0.5 per

cent of salary. The changes also made it possible to bring into

effect complete portability on a reciprocal basis with the

various other public plans in B.C. Pensions will no longer be

an important consideration for employees moving from one sector

of the public service to another.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the other progressive moves, such as

maximum contributory service, early retirement, portability and

death benefits have been incorporated in these amendments as in

the other three Acts.

The application of the Act will also now apply to the

Vancouver Museum and Planetarium Association, the UBCM and the

Band Council established under the Indian Act of Canada

with respect to service employees who are employed by band

councils.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the investment provisions have been

broadened to conform with the changes in the Revenue

Act .

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 162.

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

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately I did not hear the substance of

all the Hon. Minister's remarks this afternoon, but he has

referred two or three times in his assessments upon these bills

to the fact of this guarantee. I'd just like to ask him, if he

wouldn't mind, for my interest and I think for the interest of

all people in the province, to thoroughly explain what this

guarantee is and what it consists of.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate before the Minister

closes the debate?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'd simply refer to the

question of

section 14, for instance, of the Civil Service Superannuation Act

which guarantees 4 per cent. It is currently being worked at five for a number

of civil servants under

section 14(2)(b), if my memory serves me correctly.

That kind of illustration, I think, serves better.

Indeed, if the Hon. Members want to have a debate about

these amendments that are in line with Bill No. 74, which has

already received second reading, let's have it at that time. I

call the question.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 162 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 33, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Labour?

HON. MR. BARRETT: 33. You remember that one.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement): Mr. Speaker, this would probably be better known

as "The Repeal of the Gaglardi Amendment," which really

related to the legislation under Bill 49. However, since we

tabled the legislation there was an appeal procedure through

the courts on the Cowlishaw case and it's now been indicated in

the judgment of that case that we must build into the Act,

specifically, the requirements for an appeal procedure.

Amendments will be tabled, I think, tomorrow which will include

this. But basically this takes away the discretion of the

Minister, which…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that if we

are being promised amendments, it might be wise simply to

adjourn this.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to adjourn the

debate?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am suggesting it be adjourned, Mr.

Speaker. The promise of amendments has been put before us. They

apparently are coming very soon. We could perhaps have the bill

tomorrow or some other day this week.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2399 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The trouble is I don't know whether I've

said enough or not. The Minister and you both agree, Mr.

Premier — is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Move the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, speaking in favour of the

suggestion that I put forward, I would like to move that debate

on this bill be adjourned until such time as amendments are

prepared.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 40, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE ADOPTION ACT

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this is really a bill. There are

some changes in respect to the age of majority and other

legislation has been passed before on this. It's complementary

legislation.

The only other thing is the adoption of adults. I was a

little curious about this myself. It appears that you sometimes

have situations where children are living with people other

than their parents — grandparents and relatives. When they're

past the age of majority sometimes those guardians wish to have

them be able to get some kind of inheritance from them.

Since 1970 there have been 29 such cases. They have not come

before the Superintendent of Child Welfare because it has not

been practice, We are just tidying it up by making it so that

there is no need to report this kind of adoption to the

Superintendent of Child Welfare.

I would move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister.

The age 19, which certainly in this province is the age of

majority for most purposes, has already been amended a short

time ago, at least in principle by us, in terms of medical

treatment. This age of 19 is out of line with voting provisions

in other provinces as well as federally.

The question I'd like to put to the Minister is: what

efforts is he making to have the age of majority in this

province lowered from 19 to 18, at least to bring it into line

with the rest of Canada?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Member

is mixing two things. We're talking about the age of majority;

you're talking about the voting age.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, this is really just complementary

legislation to the previous changes. I don't know at this

moment what we're doing about the other question that you

asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 40 be read a

second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 40 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting. after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. I 11, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, apart from more housekeeping

changes, I refer the Members to the provision in there which

ensures that children who are apprehended will be separated

from adult criminals. We have asked that this be done very

specifically now. Obviously we do have to make arrangements

about this kind of housing but we've brought it into

legislation.

The main thrust of the bill deals with the dissolution of

Children's Aid societies by order of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is in keeping with the

policy that we announced on February 16 in the Capital Regional

District. We are going to take over the administration of all

of the services — both children's services and welfare. In

order to do this we need to take over the duties and functions

of the Children and Family Service in Victoria. Therefore we

are seeking this amendment.

I would move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on Bill No. 111? The

Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'd call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. I I I referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

FARMERS' LAND-CLEARING ASSISTANCE ACT

[ Page 2400 ]

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

really the most obvious change in this is the change in the

name of the legislation. The importance of this is to indicate

to the farming community that under this particular authority

we want to be able to do other things for farmers than has been

the case under the old Farmers Land-clearing Assistance

Act , which was limited specifically to land-clearing and

drainage.

It is now proposed that under this Act we'll do other

things, such as irrigation. We mentioned before that one of the

things that could be done would be to replant orchards.

Anything in the way of long-range improvements to land itself

will now be considered under this legislation. Beyond that, the

amount of money available is being increased by

order-in-council from $7,000 up to $15,000. It's a more

reasonable amount of money in view of today's prices.

Beyond that again, in the past we've been very particular as

to who might do the work. It has now been relaxed to the point

where a farmer might even be able to do it with his own

equipment and thereby be able to get a lot more work done than

he would otherwise.

As far as the legislation itself is concerned, it's a matter

of changing the name and indicating to the farming community

that under this authority we want to be able to do a good deal

more than has been the case in the past. I move that the bill

now be read a second time.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking to this bill, I just want to say that the Act as we

knew it, as the Farmers Land-clearing Assistance Act ,

was certainly a tool that was used by a great many farmers in

the Peace River country. As the Minister of Agriculture knows,

in the last 20 years approximately half a million acres of new

farmland have come into production as a result of the clearing

operations that went on in the Peace River area. Without the

financing that was available under the Farmers Land-clearing

Assistance Act that would have been impossible.

I'm glad to see that the Act is now being broadened to allow consideration

of other types of endeavours for loans under the Act. I'm also glad to see that

in the

interpretation of the Act the farmer himself may be allowed to become

his own contractor, in effect, and do the improvements himself. This was always

a bit of a contentious issue in that the contractors had to be certified. Quite

often the farmers felt that they could have done a better job of the particular

work themselves, whatever it might have been. If they have the equipmento they

should be able to use their own equipment and therefore probably

get more work done for the money available to them.

We're pleased to see that there is an increase in the amount

of money that will be available. Really, I think all this does

is reflect the increased costs of any endeavour involving the

use of equipment, machines or labour today. So we would welcome

the amendments to the Act. Certainly the new definition is

acceptable. We would support and commend the Minister for the

amendments to this Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on Bill 36? The

Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I call for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 36 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 108, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE STOCK BRANDS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not just sure why it's

happened but it seems that in the past year the ranchers have

been having a little more trouble with rustling than they have

in previous years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, so I'm led to believe. Anyway, this

particular legislation is designed to close some of the

loopholes that have made it easier for individuals to get away

with other people's livestock.

In the definition of "stock" there's reference to sheep and

swine, which have not been there previously. So the owners of

sheep and swine will also be protected by the stockdealer's

bond. It's difficult to discuss this legislation without really

getting into the section-by-section business. The amount of the

bond itself is increased, because we felt there wasn't

sufficient protection in the Act for it.

There's more control of the operators of slaughterhouses;

more provision for inspection of the livestock at the time of

slaughter, again with a view to making sure that it does belong

to the person represented as owning it.

I think that discussion of this would be much more

profitable in the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. I move that the

bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-

[ Page 2401 ]

Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to the principle of this bill, over the history of the

Brand Act — and it's a long, long history — the livestock

industry incessantly asked for amendments and more amendments.

The Act today is very much changed from the original Act. Of

course, conditions too have changed to necessitate bringing in

some of the measures today.

For example, the form of transportation has changed. At one

time they were driven on the hoof to the rail and loaded on a

railcar, which went to its destination. Today they can be

loaded on a truck, a

part load put on. Then they can be moved

on to another loading point where more cattle are put on. They

can also be loaded off. It's made it much more difficult for

the officials to properly police the industry and also to

enforce the Brand Act.

I regret to say this because I have been a livestock

producer over the years. Under the terms of the Brand Act I've

been a brand inspector. In fact, I haven't checked lately, but

I haven't had notice of my appointment being, rescinded. I

might still be a brand inspector.

I think the greatest failing of all probably is the very

fact that the industry itself doesn't do enough policing and is

not ready to give information. Had this not been the case in

the past, we would have had many more convictions. We would

have stopped the petty rustling and so on, certainly where

branded stock are.

It's a little more difficult down on the lower mainland and

over here on Vancouver Island. Under the Stock Brands

Act it's not compulsory to brand stock. It's only for your

own protection. Unfortunately, there are many instances right

here on the island and also on the lower mainland where

unbranded stock have been picked up in the field. 'Because of

the nature of the animals — they're pretty much domesticated —

they can be handled on foot. They have been loaded onto trucks

and taken away.

I don't think we will ever have proper control of the

pilfering of animals until such time as the industry itself is

prepared to do some of its own enforcing of the law by being

prepared to give information and by being prepared to notify

the authorities at the earliest possible moment — not two weeks

after. Also, where there is hunting and animals are killed and

the hind quarters taken, the information should be put in the

hands of the proper authorities at the earliest possible

moment.

All the police in the world will not stop this pilfering of livestock without

the cooperation and assistance of the livestock producer himself. The official

Opposition is in support of the bill. I just hope that these amendments can,

be of assistance to the livestock industry. But unless the industry itself

changes its attitude and is prepared to give information, I'm a little

inclined to believe that these are just so many more amendments to what we've

had in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate on Bill 108? The Hon.

Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to

take anything at all away from the remarks of the House Leader

of the Opposition. But often, and I'm sure he's well aware of

this as well, the trail has grown quite cold by the time the

rancher knows that his stock has either disappeared or been

butchered and only in part removed. Especially in certain

seasons of the year, it may be quite some time before he even

knows. By then, they just feel that there isn't much point in

reporting it. Unfortunately, indeed there isn't much point.

However, I think it's an improvement on what has been in the

past. Certainly it's something that the people in the industry

are seeking. I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 108 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1968

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

purpose of Bill No. 130 is to amend the Workmen's

Compensation Act to provide a truly impartial and

representative review board to which appeals may be made from

decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

The present board of review and the situation in the past

has been one where the review boards were composed of an

independent chairman and such other employees of the Workmen's

Compensation Board as the board saw fit from time to time to

select. So workmen have consistently expressed the opinion that

the present boards of review are not impartial and working men

generally have lost confidence in their ability to receive an

independent and unbiased review.

From our observations of the Unemployment Insurance

Act since its inception, it's clear that the Act itself and

its operations have come under criticism, but the review panels

have been generally well accepted. Their adjudications have not

only provided an impartial final adjudication for claimants,

but they have appeared to be impartial and have been

[ Page 2402 ]

accepted on that basis. the Workmen's Compensation Board as

the board saw fit from time to time to select. So, I think,

will go far to not only provide impartiality in dispensing

justice, but to fulfil the old adage that justice must not

only be done but must seem to be done.

I think by divorcing the representatives of our appeal

tribunal from any association with the Workmen's Compensation

Board, then the worker can rest assured that he is indeed

receiving an impartial and independent appraisal of his

case.

This is the basic purpose of the amendment. I think that

it's something that's long overdue. I think it's something that

will relieve many of the longstanding Workmen's Compensation

cases that have been appealed to various government

representatives and Opposition MLAs after every course and

every avenue of appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board has

been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of this piece of legislation and would just like to

commend the Minister on taking the initiative in providing an

improved vehicle whereby workmen can receive their due

consideration.

I've had many calls and complaints from the workers in my

constituency who feel that they have to work quite hard in

order to get consideration when they are dependent on a

decision, as a result of their accidents, about their

livelihood. I think that we should reverse the pendulum in this

regard and start to protect workmen and give them the benefit

of the doubt where there is a questionable situation, simply

because they are the backbone of society.

I realize that we are going to have people who will take

advantage of the situation because any time there is a loophole

or a little gap left uncovered we run the risk of people

figuring out ways of getting something for nothing. But I think

that that has to be the chance we take when it comes to

people.

There are many people out there who haven't had the

expertise to take advantage of the law, and haven't been able

to get the support they need. They have really been left high

and dry. They need protection and I think it has to come from a

Ministerial position. It has to come through this department.

We should set the trend, and not leave it up to these people to

prove their needs beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where there is

doubt, I think we have to just concede that.

We're prepared to recognize the need for a guaranteed income; we're prepared

to recognize the need for people to have a minimum

protection under unemployment insurance schemes; and we seem to be aware of

the needs in terms of social assistance — old age pensioners and so forth. But

when a workman, through no fault of his own — or maybe it was through a fault

of his own through maybe unsafe practices on the job — nonetheless he should

have the same opportunity to survive. I don't think we should take a punitive

attitude — one of punishment and make it so difficult.

I have seen old people come back who have had accidents,

workmen who have had accidents, up to five or 10 or 15 years

ago and who are still trying to get redress, and they're

starting to find it difficult because of their ailments. Some

of these ailments don't come down right away. They take time to

develop, especially when it comes to deterioration of the

joints and this kind of thing.

I think that we should take the attitude that people have to

have so much capital to survive in this society. And when we

know for a fact that individuals depend on income from an

insurance scheme, where such as the Workmen's Compensation

Board would be responsible for approving or not approving, that

we should take the lead.

I support the legislation. I would like to see us take this

attitude in all fields where people have a livelihood to be

concerned about.

Could I just take a moment, Mr. Speaker, and also welcome a

group of students from The New School in Vancouver, under the

supervision of Mr. Daryl Sturdy and colleagues. We usually get

secondary students. I think these students were about 10 or 11

years of age, maybe younger. But the unique thing about them is

their independent school — and you know the problems we are

having in trying to be fair with all of the educational

institutions, especially the ones that don't come directly

under the responsibility of the government.

But I have attended this school and I have met some of the

young people there. I know this instructor particularly. I know

that if you gave them half a chance every one of them would be

down here participating in this debate right now, because they

are not up-tight, not that group.

However, I would like to ask the assembly to join me in

welcoming them. I hope that they will return again someday as

Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I guess all the new

MLAs — at least some of the new MLAs who hadn't had a very

close relationship with the Workmen's Compensation Board or who

hadn't been hurt on various construction or logging or other

jobs that they had taken — were inundated in September and

October by compensation cases,

[ Page 2403 ]

probably some of them chronic. We felt pretty well mystified

in those early months of becoming an MLA as to just what was

happening here.

One of the first things I did was to go and spend all

afternoon at the Workmen's Compensation Board, trying to

understand some of the processes and certainly meet some of its

top staff people and try to maintain an objective

viewpoint.

But certainly the appeal process seemed to be really in

question when doctors in Maple Ridge and Mission and

specialists in Abbotsford kept firing letters my way that

certainly seemed to suggest to me that there had to be some

kind of independent body, independent from the board who had

already made the initial decision, that surely this legislation

which we're dealing with this afternoon could not come any

faster than it has now.

It always amazed me that the medical people who I would

think were objective, who knew the patient over a long period

of time and who also, Mr. Speaker, knew enough about the

history of the patient to know whether a particular injury had

been experienced on that job or not and therefore was

compensatable, surely their input was reliable. So I am very

glad that now there will be an independent group of people,

independent from the people who presumably made the first

decision, who can, I hope, in a just and honest way deal with

these cases.

I also get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Workmen's

Compensation Board is paying its way as an autonomous,

independently funded commission. Presumably, even if you look

at the extravagant Christmas cards, Mr. Member, that were sent

out, and which incidentally were very strongly criticized by

some of the independent people in my riding as a rather

extravagant expenditure — surely they have the money to carry

out this further service. I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too are happy to see the

Workmen's Compensation Act being amended to provide some

opportunity for questioning of decisions made by the Workmen's

Compensation Board.

If we have any hesitation in expressing approval of this Bill 130, it is because

of the rather clumsy procedures that there are for review. It is kind of like

a merry-go-round, The board makes a decision, and then you go to a board of

review from that decision, and that board of review makes its decision, advises

the board of that decision, and that board considers the decision made by the

review board and maybe changes its mind. If that doesn't happen, then either

the organized group of workmen or the employers or the individual appellant

himself can go back to the board.

All this raises in my mind some question as to the wisdom of

appeal procedures when the board that makes the initial

decision is deemed to be in error and in fact ends up by being

its own court of appeal. I just happen to think that runs

counter to any usual or acceptable appeal arrangements.

If the board can be found to be in error, it seems to me

that a competent review panel should have some supreme

authority over the board itself and that the decisions of the

appeal should be binding upon the board. But to merely provide

a new panel which may be an escape mechanism — I say "may"

because it needn't be — which appears to give to the person

aggrieved by the decision of the board a second opportunity to

discuss it with somebody else and then to thrust either the

review panel or the same individual back before the board

again, raises questions in my mind as to how acceptable the

appeal provision might be.

I really think that what is needed more than anything in the

operations of the Workmen's Compensation Board is a changed

attitude on the part of the board itself. Now whether the

Minister through this bill will be able to bring that about or

not, I am not sure.

The board has for too long been a law unto itself, and every

Member who has tried in any way to get reconsideration has

found that the board is pretty rigid in its attitudes so far as

reconsideration is concerned. In the hopes that this new appeal

procedure will help to undo some of these rigid attitudes, we

will support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate? The Hon. Minister closes

the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made

by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I would just like

to point out to him that a decision of a claims officer is a

decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board and the review

panel is quite free to have an appeal placed before it where a

claims officer has adjudicated a case and turned it down.

Similarly, a worker may wish to appeal his case after the

review panel to the Workmen's Compensation Board. He is free to

do that providing the decision of the review panel was not

unanimous.

To make the review panel supreme over the Workmen's

Compensation Board would pose some pretty serious implications

in many other ways. But it's not anticipated that decisions of

the impartial tribunal of review would be upset in many cases

by the Workmen's Compensation Board. That extra avenue is left

open to a worker, where he disagrees with the final

adjudication of the review panel, to proceed one step further

and make his final appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

In those cir-

[ Page 2404 ]

cumstances that would be where the decision of the review

panel had opposed or had gone against the appeal of the worker,

So, it's hardly a restrictive mechanism as far as the worker is

concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I do, believe that this, is indeed a step in,

the right direction; certainly it's not an end-all and be-all

in terms of reviewing the Workmen's, Compensation Act . As I

indicated on many occasions over the past number of months, a

more comprehensive review of the entire Act will be taking

place over the course of the next few months. In the interim, I

think, this is an essential step that does provide basis for

impartial reappraisal for workers in the province, and I

commend it to second reading, Mr. Speaker. I move second

reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 130 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 152, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

HON. MR. KING: This, Mr. Speaker, is a bill to put some

additional teeth in the Payment of Wages Act . It's a

bill that will require directors and officers of companies to

bear some responsibility and some liability for non-payment of

wages. The experience of my department over the past number of

years has been, much to their chagrin, that many valid claims

for non-payment of wages have been non-enforceable because of

the practices of some companies in setting up various dummy

corporations, dummy companies, paying the wages of workers

under one company and simply hiring them under another.

This type of thing has gone on, and the net result has been

that when the workers went to move under the Payment of Wages Act to collect unpaid wages,

there was simply no way of enforcing the legislation and the

people who had operated the, company had conveniently escaped

or filed bankruptcy. There were no assets left against which

action could be taken, to recover wages.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, plugs some of those loopholes

that existed under the previous Act and makes companies, I

submit, more responsible for their obligation to pay workers

wages. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River,

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This party supports Bill No. 152

which is an added attraction to collecting wages for workers. We believe in

the principle that a worker's wages should have first charge against any corporation

and that they should be fully protected. It is another method that is being

pursued to ensure that wages are protected, From my experience as Minister of

Labour for a short period of time, I did see ways and means that people were

utilizing to evade paying wages to workmen in the province.

This legislation has brought on added protection and will

be supported by this party.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Could the Minister tell us, when he is

summarizing the debate, if he would be personally responsible

for wages under the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia Act if that were to go bankrupt, Mr. Speaker?

MR., SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no

question that practices have been allowed to develop in this

province where workmen have found it impossible to recover

wages which were properly due to them and a change should be

made in the law. But I have some doubt in my mind as to

whether or not the liability of directors or officers of a

corporation should be spelled out in such broad terms as the

Minister has in this bill.

He spoke of companies which might go bankrupt, but I would

draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that that

limiting factor is not in the legislation. It may be that we

will have amendments on the order paper in committee in which

some of these problems can be cleared up.

The one aspect that the Minister didn't deal with and

which has caused so much general comment is the following

section. I won't refer to it by number, but it is the question

of associated and related people in the trade. The words in the

statute seem to be very broad and all encompassing. From some

of the comments made by the Minister in the Press it would seem

to me that he does not deem them to be as all encompassing as

they mig