1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2907 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Home Purchase Assistance Act (Bill 49) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2907

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2908

Mr. Veitch — 2909

Mr. Bawtree — 2911

Mr. Kempf — 2912

Mr. Lloyd — 2912

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2913

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 2914

Mr. Haddad — 2915

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2915

Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 70) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2916

Mrs. Jordan — 2917

Mr. Lloyd — 2918

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 2918

British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act (Bill 24) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2919

Mr. Bawlf — 2919

Mr. Hewitt — 2920

Mr. Kerster — 2921

Mr. Lloyd — 2921

Mrs. Jordan — 2922

Hon. Mr. Davis — 2923

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act (Bill 28) Second reading.

Mr. Strongman — 2923

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2924

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 123.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2925

Mr. Lloyd — 2926

Mr. Kahl — 2928

On vote 128.

Mr. Mussallem — 2928

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2929

Mr. Rogers — 2930

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, I ask

leave to table the financial statements of the British Columbia Railway

for the fiscal year ended January 2, 1976.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, second reading of Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising to support this bill this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before you proceed further, I

believe that you have already spoken to second reading on the Home

Purchase Assistance Act, according to my records.

MR. BAWLF: That may well be, Mr. Speaker. I did rise to make a very few comments the other evening. I stand corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. I cannot recognize you a

second time because, while you rose and spoke briefly, as I recall it,

you adjourned the debate until the next sitting of the House. Debate

then continued after that time and we listened to a number of other

speakers. So, according to the rules of our House, you have exhausted

your right to speak again on the motion. I cannot permit you to speak a

second time to second reading of this bill. However, there are other

members of the House who have not spoken in the debate — if they wish

to take part. If there is no further debate, the hon. minister closes

second reading.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): As you observed, Mr.

Speaker, there were a number of speakers prior to adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 49. I would like to take a few moments for the

benefit of members and for Hansard to respond to those comments which

were made at the time.

I think the bill has had very productive review since it was

introduced and indeed since debate was adjourned. The member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who was the lead-off speaker for the

opposition on this particular proposal, touched on several points which

I would like to respond to.

I think it's correct to summarize one of his observations with the

phrase that there was the danger of a massive bureaucracy to police

certain limitations. Mr. Speaker, this will not be so. The declaration

of value on the form will normally be accepted — that is, the form of

application for the benefits that are contained in the bill — without

investigation. We admit that there will be additional work in

calculating the reduction of payment in the cases of need — I would

refer members to

section 10(2) of the bill — but the rearrangement of

staff which will be possible with other initiatives in the Department

of Housing will cover this. This really results in the same staff but a

saving of approximately $15 million a year in terms of amounts paid out.

The member also asked about what happens in the case of self-built

homes. I'm informed by my department and satisfied that an application

from a self builder will be adjudicated on the basis of the cost of the

land and the actual costs of construction. The applicant's own labour

will not be taken into account. This is the practice now, and it will

not be changed under this proposal.

He went on to say that a piece of land is subdivided first of all

from a larger parcel and transferred perhaps as a wedding gift.

Section

14 of the bill provides that in the case of family transactions the

eligibility committee — that is a committee of the Department of

Housing which has been established, I believe, since, (and I'm subject

to correction) the department was first set up — must be satisfied that

the transaction is bona fide for full consideration.

The hon. member went on to say: "Where are we going to find $47,000

homes for families in Vancouver?" I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that a

number of members have asked themselves the same question and I've

discussed this with members from around the province with respect to

the limits which are set in various regions of the province; $47,000 is

the highest amount for AHOP under this proposal, and it ranges to

$43,000 in the greater Victoria area and so on. I thought that in the

introductory remarks I made it clear that the guidelines will be, and

are, under review by the development industry, and full consideration

will be given by the department to all constructive suggestions

received.

We're not discussing my estimates at the moment, but it may be of

interest to the House to know that in greater Vancouver just under

1,000 units costing $47,000 or less have been approved, and we

anticipate that another 1,500 will be funded before the end of this

calendar year. Of the 1,000 approved

[ Page 2908 ]

to date, one-half of those are single, detached homes. I think it's

important to emphasize again in closing debate that the bill is not

fully operative until the end of November of this year — November 30 —

and in the interval we've given several months for individuals to apply

under the existing formulae or under the new one, whichever they

consider to be their best advantage. They can continue to make

applications under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. This long

transitional period is deliberately in place to avoid pulling the rug

from under a particular family who were moving on a specific home

acquisition proposal.

The question was also asked about the amount in the home acquisition

fund. I think the member for Nelson-Creston said it was somewhere in

the neighbourhood of $200 million. Well, he was just a little short of

the mark. At May 31 of this year, the actual balance was $231.4 million.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) expressed concern

that some of the sections tied penalties to a spouse. In point of fact,

Mr. Speaker, the expression "spouse" is used in

section 4, which allows

an applicant to benefit from the residence qualifications of the

spouse;

section 6, which prohibits second chances where a person or the

spouse of that person has had previous help from the province; and

section 20, which amends the Provincial Home Acquisition Act to

prohibit second chances where a person or the spouse of that person has

had help under the main provisions of the bill.

The intention of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that second chances will

be denied to any person who has had previous help from the province.

It's considered that a spouse who has shared a family home and received

such benefit simply cannot be given this second-time-around assistance.

On marriage specifically, whether the marriage is between single

persons or whether a divorced person is involved, if either spouse has

received benefit, neither can apply in future.

I recognize that that d oes work a hardship in a number of instances

but frankly it is my information.... I've worked with the department on

this specific point. It's a very difficult one to resolve because,

while you might be able to introduce an exception or two, we can't

possibly cover all the eventualities in terms of second chance.

Therefore the decision has been taken, after a great deal of thought,

that no, it will not be available to someone who has had the assistance

before.

I think the same member also asked about the position of a person

purchasing a condominium rental unit converted to ownership, under the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act, entitled to apply for either the $500

grant or the $2,500 mortgage. I would draw your attention to

section 7

of the bill. This would entitle that person to apply for the $5,000

mortgage.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) also spoke at

length, and he was among those to quote, apparently, statistics from

the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, I assume. Well, I don't

know what the members did with the information subsequent to receiving

it, but it certainly does not tie in or jibe with the information that

we've received. Of all sales, 26 per cent in greater Vancouver Multiple

Listing Service sales in the first quarter of this year were under

$47,000 — that is the greater Vancouver AHOP limit — and 43 per cent in

the New Westminster area in the first three months of this year.

Further, 32 per cent of all sales over the last year in metropolitan

Victoria listing sales were within the price limitations suggested for

this Act.

The proposal is a very exciting one, Mr. Speaker, and I think that

we're going to see the delivery of housing which this government

promised in its campaign and is now in the process of delivering and

assisting.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Home Purchase Assistance Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading, Bill 57.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX ACT

(continued)

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I would like

to comment very briefly on this legislation, as it very much affects my

constituency. I must say that I am very pleased to be in the House

today living up to my responsibility to do the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I am distressed that, for reasons which I cannot

fathom, there does not seem to be anybody on the opposition benches to

ask the questions that my constituents, I am sure, would like to have

answered concerning this legislation.

My constituents would particularly like to know, Mr. Speaker, the

rationale behind the legislation that this replaces, which would tax an

industry on its ability to produce to such an extent that they cannot

economically produce that which the government wants to tax.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the opposition are not here to make

comment upon that. My constituents would be interested in knowing why

in three and a half years, between 1972 and 1975, no new mines opened

in British Columbia and in particular no new mines opened in my

constituency. It seems clear to

[ Page 2909 ]

me and clear, I am sure, to members on this side of the House, that

that wasn't because the mines weren't there to be opened but was

because the climate of the government was such that no mining man in

his right mind would consider opening a mine.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my constituency would like to know why it

is that Afton Mines, discovered in 1972, did not open until the change

of government and only considered reopening when the then Minister of

Mines, the now first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) indicated

that, notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature was not in session

at that time, he would at some time in the future make a deal so the

legislation would be changed to accommodate them.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few of the interesting questions raised by

the fact of the NDP government over the last three and a half years.

These are some of the questions which will not be necessary after this

legislation has passed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill and other mining legislation and programmes proposed

by the government will assure that once again mining takes its rightful place

as the second major industry in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, constituencies

such as those of my colleague the Minister of Mines, my own, my colleague the

Minister of Highways and others will once again prosper — not just prosper because

of the wealth from the mine itself, but from all of the things that go to contribute

to a mine: the heavy equipment, the labour that must be necessary, the houses

that are necessary, the supplies that are necessary.

This, not only in terms of what it will do because of the

legislation itself, but because of the psychology that will result,

will ensure that once again British Columbia will move back on the road

to prosperity. Mr. Speaker, I close by congratulating the Minister of

Mines for bringing this country back in a position where it is safe for

business to operate.

MR. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

rise and support Bill 57, the Mineral Resources Tax Act. Your Honour, I

believe the greatest failure of the New Democratic Party has been a

misunderstanding of what makes the economy of British Columbia work.

Although Bill 57 deals with mining, what I have to say about the damage

the NDP has done to the economy applies to all resource industries. We

often see bumper stickers saying: "Mining, British Columbia's Second

Industry." Becoming more common was a sticker saying: "Welfare, British

Columbia's No. 1 Industry." I don't know where this would leave

forestry, but I think that we all agree that it lies ahead of mining.

Mining must therefore be third at best, and the way things were going

prior to introduction of this bill it would be unlikely to have

sustained that position for even very long.

No one expects such departments a s Education, Health and Human

Resources to be self-supporting. The money spent by many departments

has to come from industries that produce new wealth, through taxes,

both corporate and personal, royalties and so on. These contribute more

than they receive in services. One of these areas, Mr. Speaker, is

mining.

The provincial budget for 1975-1976 called for an expenditure by the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources of $9.6 million. The

estimated income to the provincial treasury from mining alone, not

including petroleum, for that period would have been about $126

million. This means for every dollar spent the government took in about

$13. One would think that here indeed is a goose that could conceivably

lay golden eggs. The previous government thought this too, but it

seemed to want more and more golden eggs. And the way to get more

golden eggs was to increase taxation, Mr. Speaker, levy royalties and

increase ministerial interference and discretion regardless of what

happened to the goose. Well, the goose over the last few years has

become very sick. Whether or not it has a terminal illness depends upon

the result of Bill 57 and other amendments to the Mineral Act.

In the past 38 to 40 years British Columbia companies have seen the

mining industry emerge from a comparatively primitive condition that

prevailed during the '30s to the highly efficient operation of the '60s

and '70s. During the '50s and '60s and the first two years of the '70s,

mining enjoyed favourable legislation from both federal and provincial

governments, although the federal government became somewhat difficult

when they introduced the capital gains tax and eliminated the

three-year tax-free period in the late '60s. These have been important

incentives for those who provided the capital, and the tax-free period

in particular has been a great help in the first few difficult years of

any mine's lifespan.

As a result, the mining industry grew and prospered until British

Columbia in general and Vancouver in particular became the leading

centre of mining expertise in western North America. We then enjoyed a

worldwide reputation. The situation changed dramatically. Staking up to

this year has been down 80 per cent since 1972 and exploration was

virtually at a standstill. Many major companies closed their offices in

British Columbia and junior companies have been hard pressed to pay

their rent. Various suppliers of goods and services throughout the

province were suffering, since mining often provided a considerable

part of their revenues.

In his opening statement the hon. Minister of Mines noted that there

were over 200 of these types of firms which employed many, many people.

Investor confidence had been so badly shaken that it was virtually

impossible to raise money for projects

[ Page 2910 ]

with respect to mining in British Columbia. Students have missed

their summer money and experience that used to be provided to so many

of them by mining experience and mining activities.

It is interesting to note that last year the government proposed to

provide something like $70,000 to young people to give young people the

kind of training that mining companies used to provide at no cost

whatsoever to the taxpayer.

What then, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons for this decline? One that

is often advanced is economic conditions — world economic conditions.

Now it is true that prices and demand fluctuate, but these fluctuations

are normal and have little effect on exploration and development,

because there is usually a three- or four-year time lag between the

discovery of the deposit and the production of a marketable

concentrate. Another reason often advanced by the previous government's

apologists was declining metal prices. All right, then. Let's examine

this and have a look at what happened during the time since the NDP

government assumed office in 1972 until last December.

According to the then Minister of Mines — Mr. Nimsick's — report for

1972, the average price of gold for that year was $57.52 an ounce.

Toward the end of 1975 it was $150 per ounce. Similarly, silver had

gone from $1.66 to $4.40 an ounce. Copper had gone from 45 cents a

pound to 58 cents per pound. Lead, Mr. Speaker, had gone from 15 cents

a pound to 20 cents a pound and zinc from 16 cents a pound to 36 cents.

These increases were more than enough to take care of inflation.

The Yukon, which receives the same price for its metals as British

Columbia, boomed. And the Yukon is subject to the same federal taxes;

and the Yukon is presently enjoying a tremendous boom in mining. The

real reason for the problem in British Columbia is now and has been the

legislation brought down by that prior government. With its

anti-industry bias and its wide discretionary powers, it created an

atmosphere of uncertainty in most industries, not only in mining.

Before investors — and these range from banks down to individuals with

a few shares and a few junior companies — put up their money, they want

to believe that they will be fairly treated and get a reasonable return

for their investment. Without these prospects they will invest

elsewhere. That is exactly what happened in British Columbia. There are

more than enough risks in mining without the government being an

additional part of the problem.

This adverse legislation takes several forms. It has been mainly

embodied in three Acts: the Mineral Act, the Mineral Royalties Act and

the Mineral Land Tax Act. One gets the impression that these Acts were

hastily drawn up by people who really didn't know what they were doing,

were guided mainly by doctrine and therefore they had to be correct.

Many points are spelled out, but just as many are covered by such

blanket expressions as "at the discretion of the minister," defining

words not defined in this Act and so on and on.

Most investors, I am sure, would have preferred to have had

confidence in the minister at that time before becoming involved in the

exploration and development of any mine or mining property. In some

cases, decisions of the minister may have been appealed, but not to the

courts, Mr. Speaker, oh, no — to the cabinet, to the cabinet of that

day which, as far as this individual can see, is basically an appeal

back to that minister in which the mining industry had no confidence in

the first place.

This didn't only create an uncertainty in the industry but created

uncertainty in the civil service as well. At one time one could get an

answer from a relatively junior person in the service. But up until our

government assumed office, that was not the case any longer. Those

people, due to the uncertainty of the legislation, were just as

confused as the mining operators. The legislation that has done most to

discourage mining in British Columbia is that contained in the Mineral

Royalties Act, then known as Bill 31. Mr. Speaker, I intend to devote

a few moments to that Act.

Royalties set up in that legislation are not in any way taxes on

profit. They are charges levied on minerals and smelter returns with no

regard whatsoever to profits, and little or no regard to costs. They

were justified by the previous government on the grounds that other

industries pay for their raw materials. However, there is quite a

difference, say, between manufacturing and mining in this respect. In

establishing a new factory or plant, a site will be chosen where raw

materials, transportation, markets, labour and taxes are all available

at the lowest possible cost. Mines, on the other hand, cannot choose

their locations. They must of necessity be at the ore deposits and

these deposits have a habit of being in the most inconvenient places.

In applying royalties, the previous government did not take this

into consideration. The levy on a pound of copper or an ounce of gold

was basically the same whether that commodity came from a high-cost

mine in northern British Columbia or from a mine at Merritt close to

settlements, power and transportation. The only concession in this

connection is a credit for transportation on the concentrates shipped

out, but no allowance was made for transportation costs, on labour

going in and out, on groceries, fuel, power, steel and so on — costs

that are much higher than the costs on concentrates.

These royalties were imposed in two ways. The first is a 4 or 5 per

cent levy on net smelting returns. Now note that this is based on the

selling price, not on the profit. In other words, all production and

financing costs, as well as taxes, had to be met from

[ Page 2911 ]

the remaining 95 per cent. The second was a levy based on price and

was called a surcharge or super royalty. This was based on the

difference between 120 per cent of the basic value per ounce or pound,

determined by the government, and the amount received from the smelter.

Half of this is taken by government. In the case of gold, taking an

approximate base price plus 20 per cent, it is about $110. With gold at

$160, the difference is $50 and the government takes half, or $25, out

of every ounce that is produced. Is it any wonder that the gold mining

and gold production has been down in this province over the last few

years and that unemployment in these areas has been at an all-time low?

One of the worst effects of this royalty legislation is that it

turns tremendous tonnages of low-grade ore into waste that can never be

recovered. Let us mentally feature a typical ore deposit. Quantities of

ore, Mr. Speaker, are rarely homogeneous. Rather they are made up of

large tonnages of low-grade materials and small tonnages of high-grade

ore. Depending on metal prices and production costs, an average grade

that will yield a reasonable profit is determined, and this in turn

determines the cutoff or lowest grade that can be mined without making

the operation uneconomic. Anything at all that increases costs makes a

higher average grade necessary, and royalties had this effect. So our

average grade moves upward, this moves the cutoff higher, and the

remainder of the ore is now lost to the people of British Columbia in

the ground forever. It has to be left behind. The mineral tonnage is

reduced, the life of the mine is shortened, and employment and other

benefits are greatly diminished.

I wonder how the NDP felt that this was maximum utilization of

resources. Why couldn't the New Democratic government understand this

very simple point? I am not a mining man and it's completely evident to

me. The damage being done is documented in the previous government's

economic review released in September of 1975. It shows an

across-the-board decline of dramatic proportions in mining exploration

for 1974 as compared with 1973. For example, Mr. Speaker, copper

declined 40 per cent — and this is from the records that the previous

government released — zinc declined 43 per cent; silver declined 24 per

cent; gold declined 15 per cent; iron concentrate declined 8 per cent;

nickel, 39 per cent; cadmium, 47 per cent; and last but not least, lead

declined by 65 per cent. It is evident that the NDP couldn't even get

the lead out. These figures are in units of production, not dollars,

and therefore were related directly to jobs.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, British Columbians have to realize that

this province has no monopoly whatsoever on minerals — or even on raw

materials of other types. We do have very large reserves, but in

general they are low in grade compared with those of many other

countries, and our costs, particularly our labour costs, are high. And

with the imposition of royalties imposed by the previous government,

the competitive position of British Columbia and the British Columbia

mining industry was left in a very sorry state.

If the New Democratic Party thinks that high royalties can be

collected and still have a competitive industry, it is very sadly

mistaken indeed.

The love that has been preached by the former Premier is of very

little importance in the international world of metals. If the buyers

and users of metals cannot get them from British Columbia in adequate

quantities and at reasonable prices, they have plenty of other sources,

and British Columbia's mining industry will continue to decline. And

that must be tremendously obvious to anyone.

It has been said that never before in history had so few had such a

large and rich province to use as an experimental laboratory. Bill 57

moves to restore sanity in mineral taxation.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I implore you to support this bill.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I notice, Mr. Speaker, that it's much easier to get the attention of the Chair this morning than it has been in the past.

I also rise to support Bill 57, Mr. Speaker, because although the

area I represent does not have any large mines, large corporations

digging out the mineral resources, we do have in my area of Shuswap

many small pockets of ore. The Adams Plateau is a very interesting

place where many of the small miners and prospectors have worked for

many years. The Kingfisher Creek area also has been prospected and has

had some development for just about as long as I can remember. And yet,

because the bodies of ore have been so small, there has not been any

great development in the area.

I think that Bill 57 recognizes the fact that in many places in our

province there is no place for any large mine. It is going to be the

small pockets that are going to have to be developed if we are going to

remove any of the ore and if mining is going to have any place in the

area at all.

I think that this provision that allows the very small mines to

operate, up to a maximum of $25,000 before they have to pay the tax, is

going to be a very worthwhile piece of legislation in order to get some

of the people in my area back to work again.

It is certainly true that in 1972 and soon after the mining in my

area came to a virtual halt. Nobody could operate the marginal mines or

the marginal prospects that we have in the Shuswap and pay the kind of

royalties that were imposed by the previous administration.

But there are still one or two problems, Mr.

[ Page 2912 ]

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. O ne of them is access, because

of the development in the Shuswap area, the development which has taken

place. I'm referring to the development of what had been Crown land and

is now either farms or subdivisions along most of our valley bottoms.

It's very difficult for these miners to get the roads and the access

they require through this private property. This is one of the problems

that is occurring in my area, and with the very small value of the

mines that are going to be developed, people cannot pay large amounts

of ransom to the landowners of the lands over which they must cross. I

would think, Mr. Minister, that this is one avenue that should be very

carefully looked at.

Another aspect of this legislation, Mr. Minister, is the removal of

the mineral land tax, not only on the mineral lands but on the

agricultural lands as well. I know that the ranchers in my area will be

very happy to see this tax removed. However, again, it is not all that

clear. We know that those who have paid their taxes over the last few

years will not have to pay them in the future in order to retain their

mineral rights on their agricultural land. But what about those people

who forfeited, who felt that they could not afford to pay those taxes

over the last two years? I think that provisions should be made for

these people to pay that tax that they omitted to pay over the last few

years and get their mineral rights back once again on their

agricultural land.

I'm very happy, Mr. Speaker, to support this bill. I know it is

already having some impact on the activity in my riding, and I'm sure

it will have an impact right across this province. It will help the

other industries that are not wealth-producing industries, our schools

and our hospitals to get the money that they require in order to keep

operating and to establish standards that we all want in this province.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I rise to very briefly

speak in favour of Bill 57, the Mineral Resource Tax Act, as I am happy

to see the return in British Columbia to a fair and equitable form of

mineral taxation since the introduction of Bill 31 by the former

administration, Bill 31, their Mineral Royalties Act, which brought to

a standstill the mining industry in British Columbia.

Bill 57, Mr. Speaker, will not only ensure the people of this

province a return from the mining industry, but will also ensure the

people of this province a return on the invested dollar by the

stockholders, many of which are British Columbians.

Bill 31, since it was introduced, a bill better known as the Yukon

Development Act, has caused a situation in British Columbia where no

new mines were opened, there were no expenditures for exploration, and,

Mr. Speaker, because of this my constituency was hurt and hurt very

badly.

The constituency of Omineca is very dependent on the mining

industry, especially on the exploration dollar. Many dollars are spent

from April to October in each year on exploration in my constituency.

Many, many dollars are spent by those mining companies in my

constituency for the goods and services needed for that exploration.

Grocery stores, accommodation facilities, hotels, motels, hardware

stores, equipment rentals, vehicle rentals, all were hurt badly by the

loss of that exploration dollar. We're all affected by the loss of that

exploration dollar, because what happened with the introduction of Bill

31, those dollars no longer stayed within our province but went to the

Yukon, to the province of Alberta, or to other areas in the world that

had sane mineral taxation.

You see, Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill 57 my

constituency will again prosper. The mining companies will once more

mine the low-grade ore which they have not done in the last two or

three years.

I was appalled, Mr. Speaker, when during the campaign prior to the

December 11 election I spoke to the manager of Endako Mines, the

second largest moly mine in British Columbia — or in the world — that's

located in my constituency. The manager of that mine told me at that

time that because of Bill 31, because of that mining legislation

introduced by the former administration, that company was required in

order to operate and stay financially above board to mine only the

high-grade ore on their property.

The original expectation of life of Endako Mines was 21 years, and I

was told at that time that should they continue to be required to

operate in the high-grade

section of their property the life would be

reduced to seven years.

Bill 31, Mr. Speaker, also stymied the opening of a new mine in my

constituency at Houston. This backward legislation that was brought in

by the former administration made it impossible for Equity Mining

Capital of Vancouver, British Columbia, a British Columbia company, to

get that new mine off the ground. A new mine now with the advent of

Bill 57 will certainly, within the next couple of years, go into

production.

It was unable to go into production, Mr. Speaker, in the last couple

of years due to the fact that they were unable to obtain a mere

$25 million in investment capital because of the atmosphere created in

this province by that mining legislation. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the

people of my constituency are very happy to see legislation such as

Bill 57. It is on their behalf that I stand today and heartily support

and commend the Minister of Mines for the introduction of such

legislation.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I think some of the other members have covered this

[ Page 2913 ]

very well, the revenue and the opening up of the resource. However,

I would like to speak just briefly of the benefit to my riding, what it

should realize out of this. There will be a great deal of development

taking place in the interior of the province, just north of Prince

George. Certainly, I am sure, entire communities will welcome the

mining business getting back on the track again in British Columbia by

the repeal of Bill 31 and the institution of a fair and proper Mineral

Resource Tax Act, Bill 57.

I think right from the prospectors to the mining engineers they will

be relieved to see mining once more become established as B.C.'s second

major industry. Also, a number of people will be greatly affected in my

area — the airline charter companies and the helicopter outfits. In the

last few years they have had to move out of the province into the Yukon

and into Alberta. I am sure that we will welcome them back to British

Columbia and into our area.

Prince George is already a distribution centre for the forest

industry in the interior and certainly it will be a jumping off point

for the mining industry in the future. I think here particularly of the

Denison coal project which will be going ahead. I realize that

initially it will be serviced from the Chetwynd area, the closest

location, but I think in the realm of reality we should look at the

development of rail access from slightly north of Prince George — the

BCR would be a lot shorter route, or possibly up through the McGregor,

whichever proves to be the most feasible. Another access, of course, at

a later date will probably be taking off from the McBride area to the

southeastern end of that particular field.

I think one of the other things we will look at as well as rail

access — I certainly hope the minister or ministers concerned will have

a good look at it — is the providing of highway access on a more direct

route to Prince George from this Denison project. I think anyone

working and living in the community will want as short a link as

possible to a major cultural centre, recreational centre and shopping

centre. So I think they would appreciate having a link back into the

Prince George area, which would give them a more direct access route to

the coast and to the rest of the province. So I hope that is one of the

things that will be taken into consideration with the development of

that major field. It's certainly going to provide a lot of extra jobs

for the province, and particularly for people in that part of the area.

Another area of my riding that probably should be considered is the

town of Mackenzie. As you know, it relies now on the forest industry;

it has two pulp mills and three sawmill complexes, so it is entirely

dependent on the whims of the forest industry and the market and other

conditions that affect it. But it also lies just south of some major

mineral deposits in the province. I think we should study closely the

extension of access roads from that area, and the upgrading of their

airport. They do have quite a good airport there now and it would be a

nominal cost to upgrade it into a major line. So I would hope that we

would keep this in consideration for further development.

Mr. Speaker, while Bill 57 is undoubtedly going to give a boost to

the entire B.C. economy, it certainly is going to help in the interior

of the province and particularly in our area. Another area I can't help

but think will greatly benefit is the operation of the BCR. I think, as

we all know, it has been operating at a slightly greater loss every

year for the last several years. Certainly the movement of the mining

supplies, the mining equipment and ultimately the moving of mineral

ores should greatly add to the revenue we can expect to get from our

British Columbia Railway. I would hope that we could see this get back

into the black again, get back to being the railway that all B.C. was

proud of and, I am sure, can be proud of again.

I would certainly like to congratulate the minister on the

introduction of this bill. I think it is a very fair bill — getting

back to a taxation basis rather than a royalty basis. So I would

certainly recommend this bill for passage.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I rise

to support this bill now and make a few remarks partly for the benefit

of those who are in the assembly, but just as much for the record in

Hansard and for those members of the opposition who are sitting in

their offices now listening to what is going on in this assembly over

their loudspeakers instead of being attending to the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the reaction of the opposition — their

irresponsibility today — was only matched by their irresponsibility in

office and their treatment of the mining industry. Before the NDP came

to power British Columbia was noted around the world as having a mining

industry which was very high on technology, making it possible to mine

grades of ore that nowhere else in the world could be economically

mined.

We depended upon the skill and capability of technologists and

engineers, the enterprise of people who undertook the harsh job of

discovering new mining properties, and relied on the capital of

Canadians and others around the world to put these enterprises into a

position that would bring employment to British Columbians and tax

revenues to government.

In three and a half years of socialist rule in British Columbia

there was a dismantling of this industry, perhaps not a conscious

dismantling, but one, Mr. Speaker, which was the inevitable consequence

of the legislation that was introduced raising the taxes in the

province to a point where the industry was no longer economically

viable.

I recall, during the election campaign, being in the

[ Page 2914 ]

riding of the hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)

which, prior to the socialists taking over, was one of the hottest

mining areas in British Columbia, with new developments on the drawing

boards. One of the people, Mr. Speaker, with whom I spent some time

during that election campaign, said that before the NDP had taken over

— he ran a mining exploration business — he employed 250 British

Columbians. He asked me at that time to guess how many employees he had

now, and I said I really couldn't hazard a guess. He said: "Well, then,

I'll tell you: zero." He said: "I spent 10 years of blood and guts

building up a business employing 250 people, many of them people of

extraordinarily high technical capacity."

As soon as the new mining legislation was brought in, the business

was destroyed because people were no longer willing to explore. They

were no longer willing to explore because they knew no matter how

wealthy a prospect was discovered, there was no possibility of risk

capital coming in to develop that mine. Why? Because they knew that

with vengeance taxation already introduced, and with a government in

power that was almost committed to the destruction of the mining

industry, there would be no way that their capital would be fairly

treated and their enterprise would be a success in the future.

So what was the point? No point at all in new mines being developed.

No point at all in bringing capital into British Columbia. So what

happened with the people who were concerned with exploring the mines?

What happened, Mr.Speaker, is that they went elsewhere, all around the

world — to Mexico, to South America, to Southeast Asia, to other parts

of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it took 10 years to assemble that team, to

develop an industry here in British Columbia. The team is scattered now

around the world. That team, Mr. Speaker, cannot be reassembled at a

moment's notice. It can't be reassembled over the period of a year.

It's going to take someone else, a younger person with the same drive,

10 years of work to rebuild a company of that capability.

This bill which is before the House, Mr. Speaker — ironically, in

the absence of that same opposition who, when they were government,

led to the dismantling of the mining industry in British Columbia — is

a bill which still imposes very heavy taxes on the mining industry. We

still in British Columbia have the most heavily taxed mining industry

of any democracy in the world, so it isn't going to be easy. Nor do we

suggest by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that the mining industry

should not pay generous resource taxes to the people for the rights to

mine a non-renewable resource.

The opposition, were they in the House, no doubt will be taking

their case — that they would not bring in the proper form here in

British Columbia — around the province that there is some kind of

giveaway going on. They even made a phony charge to the minister here

that there was some conflict of interest in the tax consultants that he

brought in to assist in the drafting of the legislation, the same tax

consultants, Mr. Speaker, that that NDP government had hired. Had they

been wise enough to take some of the advice he gave them, the mining

industry wouldn't be in the sick state in British Columbia that it's in

today.

It was a case, Mr. Speaker, of irresponsibility when given power and

irresponsibility on the actions of that party when they were in

opposition. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are still some responsible

people in British Columbia such as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Waterland). There are some cool heads in this assembly, and because of

that, Mr. Speaker, and only because of that, are we going to be able to

return an industry to its proper state in British Columbia to bring

employment to British Columbians, union and non-union alike, and

prosperity to the people of this province.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, I, too, just want to state a few words in support of this

legislation which is before the House this morning. I remember when the

legislation which this bill replaces was passed through this

Legislature not too many years ago. I remember at that time warning the

government of the day what would happen to the great mining industry of

British Columbia if that punitive legislation was passed and brought

into law. I don't want to say "I told you so." We don't have to look

back. But some of the arguments that we brought forward to the

government of the day unfortunately actually happened in British

Columbia, and the mining industry was brought to its knees to the

detriment, Mr. Speaker, not of the big multinational mining

corporations but to the detriment of the ordinary people who worked in

those mines in British Columbia — the labourers and the small

companies who make it all possible. Those large multinationals, when

this legislation was brought in, were they hurt?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they moved.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, they picked up their bags and they

moved to a better climate. I can't say, Mr. Speaker, that I blame them,

because, as I said in this Legislature before, liquid cash for

investment is very nervous money and it's going to go where there is a

secure base.

This legislation restores a sense of fairness, and I hope that now

if all of the people of British Columbia — the men who work in the

mines, the companies that develop the mines and the taxpayers of

British Columbia — are again sharing equally in the benefits

[ Page 2915 ]

of our natural resource, gradually mining expertise and risk venture

will once again return to the province of British Columbia. As I have

said in this House time and time again, if we are to carry on the

social programmes that we have in existence in British Columbia today,

our educational programmes, our programmes in human resources and our

health and welfare programmes, we have to have a strong economy in

British Columbia or those Programmes are going to suffer and suffer to

the detriment of the ordinary person in British Columbia.

There is one thing that I do want to put into the record this

morning. If you will recall, after the then Minister of Economic

Development (Mr. Lauk) was made Minister of Mines, the real engineer,

the real architect of this punitive legislation, the then Deputy

Minister of Mines all of a sudden resigned his post because the then

Minister of Economic Development, who was the new Minister of Mines,

did not agree with this legislation when it was passed through this

House and fought in his cabinet against it. The then Minister of

Economic Development argued, when this legislation was being passed,

with the then Minister of Mines, the member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick)

. He argued against this legislation being put forward because he knew

that it would bring the mining industry to its knees.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you this morning that that government had planned

to change the mining legislation had they been returned to government. They

promised in a letter to a mining company: "We will have to review the mining

legislation because we realize that it has brought the mining industry to its

knees." They planned on changing the mining legislation. Draft copies of

that mining legislation were contained in the mining files that were removed

from that office and are now presently in the basement of the ex-Minister of

Economic Development. Had they been returned to power, Mr. Speaker.... Don't

you let them tell you otherwise and don't let anybody in British Columbia

tell you otherwise.

They may fight against this legislation, but I want to tell you that

they planned to change the legislation similar to the legislation that

we have before us this morning. Make no mistake about it. I want that

firmly in the record. It gives me a great sense of pride to stand in

this Legislature this morning and support this legislation.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I'll only be a moment

but I would like to add my voice to this, and I would like to

congratulate the Minister of Mines for Bill 57. I speak on behalf of

the city of Kimberley, which is in my constituency, and this city is

completely dependent upon the Cominco mine there. Bill 31 caused this

mining company, one of the largest in the world, to leave their

low-grade ore in the ground. Now with Bill 57, they will be able to

mine everything. This also will lengthen the life expectancy of this

mine.

Bill 31 had reduced the life expectancy considerably. There are in

the city of Kimberley approximately 8,000 people that are dependent

upon their livelihood in this mine. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Mines is to be highly congratulated on this bill, and I

would like to congratulate the other speakers for the fine way that

they covered all of the main facts. Thank you.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, people who spoke in support of this bill covered most of

the reasons that it was necessary. I would like to go over the main

objectives of the mineral policy of British Columbia as I did on the

opening of the second reading of this bill.

This government believes that a mineral policy must ensure for the

people of British Columbia the optimum amount of revenue from the

exploitation of its mineral resources over the long term. The mineral

policy must also encourage exploration for, and development of, mineral

resources to increase the mineral resource base and to maintain such a

base at the optimum level. This policy must encourage employment

opportunities and establish the base for economic diversification. The

mineral policy must encourage regional development and the development

of roads and transportation systems. The mineral policy must control

the environmental effect of the exploration and exploitation of mineral

resources.

Mr. Speaker, this spells out what the mineral industry has been

doing in British Columbia for over 100 years now. This industry has led

the way for the economic base that this province has. Everything we use

in our everyday lives in some way depends upon mining. Every person in

this province is much more dependent upon mining than they may realize.

In our study of mining taxation systems across Canada we made a

computer model of 70 different mines, real mines in this country, and

we used varying levels of profit-based taxes and royalties to determine

which type of a taxation system will in the long run return a maximum

amount of revenue to the governments.

It was proven beyond any doubt that profit-based tax returns a much

greater revenue to the government in the long run. Certainly a royalty,

especially an onerous royalty such as we had in the last few years,

gives you immediate gains but in the long run it does nothing but

destroy your resources. It changes ore into waste and it makes it

impossible for mining venture capital to earn a return, and therefore

such capital will not come to this province. In effect, that type of

taxation kills the mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for a great length of

[ Page 2916 ]

time reading letters to you which I have received from prospectors,

from people not really related to the mining industry in a direct

manner, but people in all walks of life and every endeavour in this

province, thanking this government for presenting Bill 57, for they

know the effect this legislation is going to have on the province.

It's not going to mean an immediate boom in the mining industry, but

it's going to give the industry a chance to regain its rightful place

in the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Premier of this province in 1972 stated:

"Unless we can get a better deal for what we are doing, we will leave

the ore in the ground and, " he said, "I mean it." Mr. Speaker, that's

exactly what happened, the ore stayed in the ground and the jobs and

opportunities for the citizens of this province became non-existent.

The mining industry supports this bill, and the mining industry

includes the many, many thousands of people who are employed in it. And

it was not the mining companies that elected me, and it was not the

mining companies that elected this government; it was the people who

work in these mines. The people will realize the benefits from a

healthy mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 57.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there are many empty seats on

the other side including, I'm ashamed and embarrassed to say, that of

the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) . Are we sure that the

division bells are working?

MR. SPEAKER: I feel certain that the division bells are working and heard within the precinct area.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 57, Mineral Resource Tax Act, read a second time and referred

to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

DENTISTRY AMENDMENT ACT 1976

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

basically this is a housekeeping Act. It provides for some 13

amendments to the Dentistry Act. The most significant are two of these

amendments to

section 3 and 80 that will authorize the College of

Dental Surgeons of British Columbia to finance and establish clinics in

areas which are presently dentally underserviced.

Mr. Speaker it is with some degree of pride that we say that the

College of Dental Surgeons has been very cooperative with the

government in attempting to reach these hard-to-service areas with the

dental profession.

At the present time there are two or three other areas ready to go

ahead with dental services and are being held up only because of a

problem with the college making bank loans in order to finance these

clinics which will eventually be completely repaid by the dentist who

practises there. These amendments will allow the College of Dental

Surgeons to take out mortgages on, these clinics. For that reason it

is very important, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislature pass this bill as

quickly as possible.

Other amendments to the Act authorize the council to require

dentists to have undertaken continuing education before having their

licences renewed, and likewise to carry liability insurance on behalf

of themselves and their employees. Both of these amendments are

designed to protect the public's interest. Also, again for the public's

protection, there is an amendment which ensures that when a dentist is

suspended from practice for an offence against the Act, that dentist

will not be able to continue to practise until the decision of the

council is overruled by a court of appeal. In other words, while the

appeal is pending and a dentist has been suspended from practice, the

suspension will be in effect until the appeal is heard. Again, this is

a most important amendment for the protection of the public from a

practitioner who may be a danger or a menace to the public.

Another amendment, Mr. Speaker, would just facilitate changes to the

rules and bylaws of the college. However, it would also rest the power

of veto with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet.

There is an amendment which requires the council to publish in their

rules and regulations — which also in effect means that the college

would get the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the

qualifications necessary for persons to be eligible to write the

examinations of the college and thereby to become registered and

licensed to practice in this province. At present the qualifications

are determined simply by a motion of the council of the college.

Nobody, because of that regulation, knows exactly what the regulations

are — what the criteria are for a person from outside of Canada to

become licensed in this province.

There has been some discussion and argument that anybody who has

completed training in a dental school listed in the directory published

by the World Health Organization should have the right to be licensed

here. However, many dental schools included there are in underdeveloped

countries. Some are in

[ Page 2917 ]

central European countries where the standard of dental education,

Mr. Speaker...there is no comparison with that which is inherent in the

North American, the British, the Australian and the New Zealand

schools. So what we are saying here is that at least the college must

publish its criteria, and those criteria must be approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, those are the amendments to the Act —

basically housekeeping but with those two very important amendments

which, as I mentioned, will allow the college and the government to get

on with the job of servicing hard-to-service areas in British Columbia.

I now move that the bill be read a second time.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

support this bill. Really, in listening to the minister's explanation,

I don't think there is too much that can be added. But in speaking for

those dentists with whom I have had the opportunity to meet, and also

from experience around the province in relation to public need, it is a

much-needed bill. While it is termed a housekeeping bill, I think we

can recognize that housekeeping should hold — it always has and should

still hold — a major position in family life and in government life,

because sometimes it is through the housekeeping changes in legislation

that we do remove the blocks or the obstacles to some really

progressive action.

Certainly, the shortage of dentists in all of North America,

particularly in the remote areas, is a matter of public concern. I

would personally like to see this approach whereby the profession

itself is assuming the financial backing that is needed to encourage

dentists to practise in the more remote areas of the province. This is

a direct saving to the taxpayers. It assures the public of a more

efficient type of service, we hope. I believe that this ensures a high

quality of dental service in the more remote areas.

The minister didn't mention it and I would hope that in closing he

might make reference to the fact that we have had in British Columbia,

well, not a large, but a very effective mobile dental unit service. It

was started by the former Social Credit government; it has served very

well. It did act as an impetus to young, very bright dentists to go out

into the remote areas because of the opportunity to get into practice

without a heavy financial burden if they were carrying a number of

debts from their training. While this was basically financed in capital

costs by the government, it then operated on a solely fee-for-service

basis. It proved very effective and it proved attractive to young

dentists.

I hope this will continue and, rather than the government financing

these services, that a cooperative discussion, in terms of areas of

need, between the minister's department, the government and the dental

profession would see them also move more into this area. There are some

areas where I think it's absolutely impossible to consider that we

would have resident dentists, and yet with the mobile-type unit they

can facilitate the people and make it economically feasible as well as

offering a minimum of inconvenience to the dental staff itself.

Continuing education is always a matter of concern, whether it's a

mechanic, whether it's in the area of retailing or wholesaling and

certainly in the professions. It's been evident in the dental

profession, as with many other professions, that those who attend the

seminars and do volunteer to take

part in continuing education are

usually those who least need it. And those who could benefit from it,

either for reason of overwork or perhaps a lack of knowledge of the

need to upgrade their training and their practice, have not always

taken advantage of this opportunity. Once again, this will ensure, I

think, a higher standard of dentistry in the province of British

Columbia as well as assuring the public — not only in the metropolitan

areas but, again, in the remote areas — of the very latest and most

responsible techniques in dentistry.

I think the appeal procedure is self-explanatory. Again, while it is

classed as housekeeping, in my view it's a very important aspect of

this bill, because nothing could be more disastrous to a patient than

having a dentist who is under review still practising when the cause

for that review might be his patterns of practice, or the standard that

he's practising.

Again, the other major amendment which does outline for all to see

the qualifications for a candidate to qualify as a dentist in British

Columbia I think is an excellent move. This removes any mysticism or

any question that might have existed in terms of who can qualify as a

dentist. It removes any suggestion that there could have been

discrimination in the opportunities for people from either our own

countries or other countries to qualify. It also lets the public know

the amount of training and the degree of responsibility an individual

must have before they can even begin to sit to qualify as a dentist.

All in all, I would fully support the minister's statements. I would

just ask, in regard to qualifying, if the minister would let us know

whether this qualification would be published in an international

dental journal so dentists from other countries who might wish to come

to B.C. wouldn't be so foolish as to come to Canada, for example, and

then hope to qualify for B.C. exams when in fact they didn't have the

required training. I realize they can write and get this information,

but many people don't think this far ahead, unfortunately, and if there

is an international publication it might well be a good idea —

certainly when this Act is passed — to make it known to all dental

schools around the world.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I believe, while it is classed

[ Page 2918 ]

as a housekeeping bill, there are very important amendments in this

bill and the standard of dentistry in British Columbia will benefit and

thus the public will benefit.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join with the member for

North Okanagan in welcoming the amendments proposed under Bill 70.

Certainly I feel it will help provide dental services to some of the

more remote communities in the area. I think probably next to the

fluoridation of all the community water supplies in the province, this

programme is probably one of the more ongoing programmes.

I would just like to ask the minister for a little more

clarification on what is meant in

section 1, the guarantees to borrow

money and secure mortgages. We've had a situation in Mackenzie where

they had a problem attracting dentists to the area because of the high

expense of setting up clinics. In that particular case the provincial

government loaned money to the area of Mackenzie to establish their

clinic. I just wondered if you could clarify just exactly how this

power to borrow money was meant. Would it be meant to loan money to

municipalities or to groups of dentists, or what role they would

actually play in that? Other than that, I would certainly commend the

amendments to this bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments

made by the two members. For the member for Fort George, the power to

borrow is meant only for the College of Dental Surgeons itself, which

would borrow the mortgage money to set up its own clinic which would

then be rented to the dentist who goes into that area, and it would be

a self-liquidating mortgage back to the College of Dental Surgeons.

It's intended that the cooperative effort between the government and

the College of Dental Surgeons will continue, Mr. Speaker, in that in

some areas, such as Mackenzie, as mentioned by the member, it will be

the government which will take the initiative and either loan the money

to a non-profit society or to the municipality, or the government will

set up a clinic.

Sometimes the government supplies equipment to a dentist to help

him get started, so the cooperation is there — between the government

initiative and the college initiative. It's one that's working very

well, and we hope that it will continue and in fact improve.

With regard to the two questions from the member for North Okanagan

about, first of all, licensing: I can recommend to the college that

they distribute these new regulations wherever they possibly can, and I

am sure that might help. But it should be remembered that even though

an applicant from some other country may not be acceptable to the

college because of the school from which that applicant graduated, that

applicant can still become licensed in British Columbia simply by

writing the examinations of the Canadian National Examining Board,

which are held at the University of Western Ontario. I rather feel that

most graduates from schools all over the world know that they can come

in. If they can pass those exams, then the College of Dental Surgeons

will license them for practice in British Columbia. Graduates from

schools which are recognized by the council, and those will be the

criteria which will be published in the regulations, need only pass the

local examinations which are much less intensive.

In regard to the programme we have going of dental externs — the

young graduate dentists who travel throughout the province for 11

months of the year in mobile clinics — yes, by all means that programme

is continuing. As a matter of fact, just last week I had the privilege

to inspect the mobile fleet which is now up to its hoped-for level of

six mobile units. There are a couple of brand new ones out on the road

now and there are six young dentists who just left — some of them left

last week and I guess they will be leaving for the next couple of weeks

— to travel all over British Columbia. They spend a certain amount of

time in each of the communities they visit. They are gone for 11

months and it's quite an exciting career for them as a start for their

new profession. In fact, one of them is on his second term as an

extern, which proves that the programme is both worthwhile to the

patients in the communities and to the young people who are getting

this much-needed experience in parts of this province.

This programme, incidentally, has been going about 20 years now in

one form or another and is now only reaching its full fruition. It

bodes well for the service to these communities. The idea of expanding

as much as possible the opportunity for both the college and the

government to initiate new programmes in hard-to-service areas is to

then move the extern programme into another area that needs it. So once

we get a permanent or even semi-permanent facility, then the extern

programme doesn't have to visit that area and we can send them

somewhere else. Hopefully within the next few years we will be able to

say that this province is covered adequately, at least, by dental

service. I now move second reading of Bill 70.

Motion approved.

Bill 70, Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2919 ]

BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRY

CORPORATION ACT

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the legislation

which would incorporate a B.C. Ferry Authority. For many years there

was a separate corporation. In 1968 this was terminated and B.C.

Ferries became a part of what is now the present Department of

Transport and Communications. I think it's desirable to go back to the

old arrangements whereby a separate corporation, a separate Crown

agency, operates the B.C. ferries. It is desirable from several points

of view, not the least of which is to report and operate as a separate

entity which operates substantially along business lines. It will,

however, be necessary for that corporation to receive an annual subsidy

from the government.

Reference is made in the legislation to a highway equivalent

subsidy. The highway equivalent subsidy forecast for the rest of this

fiscal year is $25 million. This subsidy may be altered from year to

year at the discretion of the government.

Over and beyond the subsidy, however, the ferry corporation will be

expected to operate within its own budget. In other words, the users of

the ferry system will pay for the costs of the ferry system, with the

exception of the subsidy which is provided for in this legislation. The

basis of the highway equivalent subsidy may be of interest to hon.

members. In arriving at the $25 million figure, it has been assumed

that the mileage covered by B.C. Ferries of the order of 600 miles —

and that, of course, includes the Kelsey Bay to Prince Rupert run —

would be the equivalent of the Trans-Canada Highway, two lanes built in

the most difficult territory in British Columbia, namely in the Fraser

Canyon, the most expensive sections of that highway, and, of course, at

present-day costs. Assuming that that mileage then is of that

difficulty of construction and that difficulty of maintenance, we

arrive at a figure of the order of $ 25 million subsidy for the

current year.

The ferry corporation, operating as a separate Crown agency with

this statutory subsidy, will have a reasonable degree of operating

independence. It will however, have to report its financial results in

accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and it will

be responsible for its own future capital expenditures.

I emphasize "future" because the current assets of B.C. Ferries will

be turned over to the new corporation at the cost of $1. Those assets

have been in large measure, paid for by the users of the ferry system

in the past and there is really no good or equitable reason why they

should be paid for again in the future hence the transfer of existing

assets at the cost of $1. All future capital assets would have to be

arranged for and met out of the income of the corporation, including

the highway-equivalent subsidy.

The assets of the corporation would, of course, include all of the

vessels, would include the unique terminal facilities. I emphasize the

word "unique" — the facilities at the terminals which are unique to the

vessels, unique to the ferry system — because otherwise the terminals

would be part of the highway system and paid for out of normal

government revenues by way of the Department of Highways and Public

Works estimates.

The new ferry corporation will have to refer certain matters to

cabinet for approval. The appointment of directors is a matter for

cabinet discretion. The control of the annual highway-equivalent

subsidy is also a matter for the government's discretion. Further

matters: disposition of assets would have to be cleared by cabinet;

adding or deleting major routes is another item; and certainly major

changes in ferry fares would have to be also approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Otherwise, the corporation will

operate, as does B.C. Hydro, for example, as do other Crown

corporations, with a fair degree of independence, certainly

independence in respect to matters such as negotiations with unions,

purchase of supplies and so on.

We have had a number of studies made. Already reported to this House

is the study carried out early this year by Price Waterhouse. At that

time, Price Waterhouse reported that in order to break even the income

of B.C. Ferries would have to be trebled, and perhaps even quadrupled.

We have moved, since that time, to increase the income to the ferry

corporation by raising fares — approximately doubling the fares on the

various routes served by B.C. Ferries — and we have effected a number

of economies. Nevertheless, the shortfall this year will be of the

order of $25 million, will be of the order of the $25 million subsidy

which I have described already.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of details in the legislation which

hon. members may wish to discuss. There may be a number of questions

which hon. members may wish to raise, but at this stage I would like to

move second reading of this bill.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill with a few comments in mind.

First of all, basically I think it is a very progressive bill that

we are able to put the ferry system into a Crown corporation which will

have the capability of standing on its own feet and which will not

distract from the operations of government through its general

revenues, except to the extent, of course, that the general

transportation network in this province is subsidized out of those

general funds. In that regard, of course, I think it is a very

reasonable proposal that all of the residents of Vancouver Island and

indeed

[ Page 2920 ]

British Columbia will accept that the system be subsidized to the extent that the B.C. highway system is itself subsidized.

There are, of course, many people in the province of British

Columbia who may never see a B.C. ferry who will be contributing toward

that subsidy. On the other hand, those people in some parts of the

province who will not, perhaps, have the opportunity to ride on a ferry

for many years are receiving in return subsidies on their local or

regional road network from residents of Vancouver Island and the Gulf

Islands, and so as a reciprocal arrangement it is, I think, quite

reasonable.

I am aware that the bill establishes a subsidy which I think is

quite generous in that respect. Considering the cost of maintaining a

comparable distance in transportation link, highway link, in other

parts of the province, $25 million is a generous allocation of funds.

It would reflect certainly the most costly link, namely the Fraser

Canyon, that could be found in the province. I don't think it is by any

means open to question. It is a most generous allocation and one for

which I think all the residents of the islands of British Columbia

which are served by these ferries will be most grateful.

Mr. Speaker, one other aspect of this subsidy, however — I would

like to be assured that it will be indexed, that it will be in some way

pegged to the escalating costs of that highway system as the residents

of these areas that are contributing to the highways in other parts of

the province would be expected to meet the rising costs of highways. I

would hope the province would be prepared to adjust the reciprocal

arrangement.

With regard to the operations of the corporation, I'm not sure

technically, Mr. Speaker, whether those operations can be extended

across an international boundary. There's been some debate on this

subject in and outside of the House on previous occasions. I am in that

regard mindful of a particular programme which I would like to see

pursued which is the development of a long-term stable set of links

across from Vancouver Island into the Puget Sound area. It has become

apparent that the service which has been rendered by the Princess

Marguerite which is, as I understand it, presently a separate entity,

is not adequate to take advantage of the real interest and demand for a

transportation link between Seattle and Victoria.

There is a vessel which is presently idle in the B.C. Ferries fleet, one which is a very fine vessel in its own right, the Queen of Surrey .

It was purchased from, I believe, Sweden at a lost of some $17 million.

It is a vessel which was unfortunately purchased with a view to a run

on which it subsequently proved to be too costly to operate. The

characteristics of the vessel are that it is slow in the turnaround at

the terminal and therefore the shorter the run the less efficient it

is. It was built for the Baltic crossing. It was built as a deluxe

ship. It has many amenities on board which have not been utilized to

date in the B.C. waters.

However, having been taken off of the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo run, I

believe it is, and sitting idle, it is nevertheless ideally suited for

the Victoria-Seattle run. Of course, bearing in mind the tremendous

importance of the visitor economy on Vancouver Island, we must consider

the advantages of providing the best possible service to Victoria on

the Victoria-Seattle run. The vessel is capable of carrying some 160

cars by comparison to the 60 cars which the Princess Marguerite can

carry. It is the type of vessel which can give a very high standard of

service, particularly year-round by virtue of its car-carrying

capacity. It is not merely an excursion boat. It is a full-fledged

ferry.

I could go on at some length about that, Mr. Speaker. I'm hopeful

that the minister may be able to find an avenue to maintain that vessel

in the corporation and yet operate it across the international boundary

and perhaps even find us similar kinds of support and subsidy of a

federal nature that are being received in other parts of this country

on the eastern seaboard for such an operation.

Returning to the principle of the bill, certainly it is one that

will be welcomed, I think, by all British Columbians in that it puts

our ferry system in order. It certainly will be welcomed by my

constituents and all of the residents of these islands who are directly

affected by the ferry service inasmuch as it clearly sets out a fair

means of support reflecting the contribution that these people are

making to the transportation system of the entire province. I welcome

the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on

it.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I rise

to support Bill 24, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act. I am

pleased to see that the minister has brought this bill in to set up the

ferry system in this province as a Crown corporation — as a Crown

corporation, I feel, giving that system first of all independence and,

secondly, as a Crown corporation, making it responsible to the

Legislature. I don't see it being any different from B.C. Hydro. I

think that the fact that it can enter into or will be able to enter

into negotiations and it will be able to acquire its materials and

supplies will make it more accountable to the public in regard to its

operation and the viability of that operation.

Considering

section 11, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the possibility of

adjusting fares or fixing fares, tolls and other charges for the use of

the ferries, this is important that a Crown corporation can elaborate,

set out in its books of account and its financial statements actual

costs of operating that system.

[ Page 2921 ]

Sometimes when we have it as a department of government, the total

cost — the administration costs of the system — get hidden and we do

not truly know the exact amount of the cost of the operation and

therefore cannot truly set out to the public the reasons for fare

increases.

I think this is important — that the public be aware of the costs of

operating the ferries, the reasons for the increases. The Crown

corporation has to set all this out in its financial statements. The

one protection that the public has, Mr. Speaker, of course, is that any

increases in fares would be subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I feel that there has to be considered,

as I think

another hon. member has mentioned, the fact of subsidies, the fact that

that water between Vancouver and Vancouver Island should be considered

as part of the highway system to connect the island to the mainland and

should be subsidized to some extent.

The other comment I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is in regard to the

corporation employing its own employees as employees of that

corporation as opposed to public servants. I see under, I believe,

section 22 the seniority and the benefits accruing to the public

servants to this point — when they become employees of the Crown

corporation those benefits and seniority, of course, will pass through

to the Crown corporation. I think that is important that that be

mentioned, Mr. Speaker, in order that employees who sometimes get a

little bit concerned or possibly a little bit misled feel that there is

some jeopardy involved when this service becomes a Crown corporation.

One thing, Mr. Speaker, just in closing in commenting on this bill,

is I believe that this province should continually push the federal

government in an attempt to have the crossing considered as part of the

Trans-Canada Highway and that subsidies be forwarded by the federal

government to help offset the cost of operating that ferry system.

Those are my few comments on the bill. I think it's a step forward.

It creates a Crown corporation that is in effect at arm's length from

the government. It will be able to do its job, provide its service and

report to the public as an independent corporation and stand in regard

to its possible fare adjustments. But it will be accountable, Mr.

Speaker, to this Legislature — to the people of the province — but it

will be accountable in such a way that all costs incurred will be set

out in order that people understand just what is involved in operating

that system. Mr. Speaker, I would support this bill. As I say, I think

it's a step forward.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I would at this

time be very proud to associate my remarks on this bill with the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) and the member for Boundary-Similkameen

(Mr. Hewitt).

I would expressly refer my remarks to the flexibility which this

bill, Bill 24, will give to the proposed Crown corporation regarding

fare structures. We have recently seen some extremely beneficial

alterations in fares — reductions in fares — to various sectors of

users of the ferry system. However, I would like to go on record as

requesting that the hon. minister when considering any further

alteration of rates consider that school students be given a reduced

rate when they travel as a group with their teachers and chaperones to

Victoria on educational visits to our provincial capital and the

parliament buildings.

Again, the Crown corporation concept is a definite advantage to all

people of this province — to all users of the system, to all employees,

to the employer, all users alike. Again stability will return to the

British Columbia ferry system; accountability will return through the

operation, on a businesslike manner, of the system under this bill.

MR. LLOYD: I would like to make just a very brief comment in

relation to what the first member for Victoria said. I certainly agree

that the users on Vancouver Island deserve a subsidy somewhat in line

with what the highway costs are, but as the minister himself has

outlined, that's a pretty high standard of highway construction which

we aren't realizing anywhere in the province right now. Certainly when

the economy of B.C. picks up again I am hopeful that our government can

restore a realistic highway rebuilding programme to the entire province

of British Columbia.

I think one of the other things we have to remember when we talk

about putting larger ferries into service on special runs is the cost

of the approaches and the highway access to these. Certainly while I

think it is a very desirable thing to encourage as much traffic as

possible to our capital city and to the Island, I think we do have to

bear in mind that there is already this $25 million subsidy.

I am sure a lot of the people in the more remote communities of the

north and the interior...when you talk of subsidizing Gulf Islands

residents, they think of the smaller communities and residents outside

the mainstream of cities. When you are talking of a ferry system like

this you are actually talking about a transportation subsidy similar to

what B.C. Hydro gives in Vancouver and the lower mainland.

So I think it is something that should be borne in relationship. It

seems rather unfortunate that just three years ago we started losing

money on this operation. Up until that time it was quite an economical

service and the pride of British Columbia.

[ Page 2922 ]

I would certainly be hopeful that with the better operating

procedures and the improvement in labour-management relations that

should be able to be realized under a Crown corporation, and with a

more realistic rate schedule, we will be able to cut down on this

subsidy that is necessary for this run.

Again, I am not speaking against the subsidy for the Vancouver

Island residents, but I would just like all the members to bear in mind

that the people in the north haven't had a realistic highway programme

for the last four or five years either. I certainly support the bill,

however.

MRS. JORDAN: In rising to support this bill, I don't intend

to repeat the other excellent remarks that have been made in terms of

the need for this and the hopes for the future in the operation of our

ferries in B.C. and an equitable distribution of moneys for highway

services throughout the province, whether it is ferries or roads in an

area such as that that I represent where we have serious road problems

that have developed over the last few years and which do need attention

and which, we hope, will get it as the economy of the province improves.

But I would like to address myself to something that may raise some

levity in the House but it is an important factor, although small. That

is in the new rate structure in relation to equestrian, otherwise known

as horses and horse riders. In British Columbia it is a matter of great

interest in that area that B.C. has not been able to place in the

Olympic team this year, although there are two or three standbys from

British Columbia. However, the ability of our western riders has

greatly improved over the last few years through more intensive

training, a better quality of horse and certainly much better

instruction.

We have a number of interior riders who undoubtedly will form our

team for the British Empire Games in the next two years. Also, there is

no question that we will be bringing along riders for the Olympics in

the future if they can get the experience along with the instruction.

That experience means that they have to move around to competitions not

only in other provinces but within our own province. Most of these

people are children from ordinary British Columbia families. They are

not wealthy and they are faced with more extreme costs in this sport

than almost any other sport.

I would ask that the minister consider a review of reduced fares for

amateur horses on the ferries. This could be qualified if they moved in

the off-peak times — perhaps Fridays, if they are attending a weekend

event on the Island, or Fridays if they are attending a weekend event

on the mainland. As I say, this is a small thing. We are talking

directly to B.C. Ferries but we have to remember other parts of

development and other areas of interest in our province.

Recreation is a major part of our lives in North America; it's a major

part of our life in British Columbia. Having just had the opportunity to visit

the Olympic site, and as much as I admire it architecturally and as much as

I don't intend to get into the cost of it, it does disturb one to see so

much money being put into physical facilities for so short a period of time

as far as the major event is concerned, and so little help being given to our

athletes who are the very people who make the event possible.

I would hope that the minister would take under advisement this

suggestion. He may set down any qualifications he sees fit, but

remember that horses are very costly to begin with. The training is

extremely expensive.

We are competing in the west with Alberta and Manitoba, who have

extensive training programmes and which are progressing very well. If

our young people or even our older people are to take their places in

this part of the athletic world, their ability to compete in all parts

of the province is essential, and consideration of cost in this area

would be just one small way of helping some of our British Columbia

athletes.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): In listening to the last

remarks, I was thinking, well, if we're going to let the horses on,

then I suppose we'll have to let the people on who have hot rod cars

that go around to the various car races around the province — but I'll

try and relate my remarks more to the matter at hand.

In these galleries, under normal circumstances, we usually have a

group or two of high school students from various parts of the

province. I was quite concerned recently, having received a letter from

the principal of a high school in my constituency, when he informed me

that because of the increased cost that would be encumbered upon the

students or their parents, they were unable to visit these precincts on

their annual trek to Victoria. I have entered a notice of a private

member's bill, but this is just as good a time as any to discuss it.

If consideration is to be given to transporting the horses and the

people who look after horses around the province at a reduced rate, I

think the high school students of this province who wish to come to

Victoria from the lower mainland or any area should have assistance on

the ferries to the point that when they come on an official delegation

or an official visit, they should have some type of free or

reduced-rate use. I wonder sometimes when I sit in this House whether

or not the trip is really worthwhile, but nonetheless it's something

that should be given some consideration, and I will ask the minister to

take that under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

[ Page 2923 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, very briefly in answer to

comments from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), certainly the

concept behind the highway equivalent subsidy is that it would be

indexed. As highway construction and maintenance costs rise due to

inflation and other reasons, similarly the subsidies to B.C. Ferries

would also increase. He also referred to international routes. B.C.

Steamships

(1975) Ltd. was incorporated as a separate company from B.C.

Ferries to operate the Marguerite because it was on an

international run. I think it will always be necessary for us to have a

separate corporation or vessels which are engaged in, say, the

B.C.-Washington state ferry operations. Those corporations, of course,

come under federal jurisdiction,

whereas B.C. Ferries is incorporated

to operate totally within the province.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) referred to federal

subsidies. Previous governments have, without fail, endeavoured to

obtain a subsidy for B.C. Ferries from Ottawa and have not yet been

successful. We are continuing to press hard in this respect and also,

incidentally, to press now for a subsidy on the international run of

the Princess Marguerite under B.C. Steamships — since even in the

original terms of Confederation when British Columbia joined the

Dominion of Canada there was provision in a specific clause for federal

assistance for international routes.

The member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) referred to the desirability

of support for schoolchildren in meeting B.C. ferry fares.

Schoolchildren going to and from school do not pay any fares. However,

schoolchildren and especially those over 14 who may, for example, be

visiting this Legislature from Vancouver require assistance. We

recognize this. There is a 25 per cent reduction in ferry fares

available to them if they travel by bus. There is also some money

available from the Department of Education which, I believe, should be

increased beyond $1 per child for tours of this kind.

The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned losses since 1971.

They have skyrocketed. Prior to that, B.C. Ferries operated

substantially in the black on operating account. It didn't always cover

its capital charges but it certainly met all its wages, fuel and other

operating expenses. From the early 1970s onwards the costs have risen

very substantially, and we ran into deficits in the last several years

running into many tens of millions of dollars.

The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) referred to groups other

than schoolchildren who might also warrant special rates or receive

special assistance from departments of government to meet their ferry

costs. Certainly those are under consideration. Bicycles, incidentally,

travel free now on our ferries as do, for the first time, senior

citizens. They travel free between Mondays and Thursdays anywhere on

the B.C. Ferries. I think, Mr. Speaker, that covers the main question s

raised by members in this House.

I move second reading of Bill 24.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE

INCOME FOR NEED ACT

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, if I recognize you, that terminates the debate. I believe there are other members who would like to speak on it.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I rise today to support Bill 28.

Before entering my remarks, I'd like to preface them by saying that

I was elected as an MLA to represent the people of the constituency of

Vancouver South, not just as a Social Credit member in this Legislative

Assembly, but also and more importantly as a representative of the

people who voted for me in that constituency. Some of the members today

seem to have forgotten that responsibility. They follow an

irresponsible leader with a foolish policy, and they're an insult to

this House and an insult to the people who have represented British

Columbia for generations. They seem to forget that the people who

elected them elected them to represent their constituency and their

beliefs. I don't see how they can do that loitering in the halls,

drinking coffee in the dining room upstairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please get back to the principle of the bill?

MR. STRONGMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

I'd like to end that part of my remarks by saying I deplore their

action, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should move on now to the concept

of Bill 28.

1 arrived in B.C. some 10 years ago, and I understand and recognize

that its record in the field of social assistance in this part of the

country has been untouched by any other area. A generation ago, the

Social Credit government under Premier Bennett began a system of social

assistance that has been unparalleled anywhere. This programme was

[ Page 2924 ]

expanded by the NDP government and they should be commended on some

of the programmes that they brought forward. As an opposition member, I

envied some of the things that they introduced. I support them and I am

pleased to say that our party has developed them to an even finer level

than they have been up until now.

One of the comments that I do have to make, though, is that although

their answer to Steve Austin couldn't jump fences or run 80 miles an

hour and didn't have bionic arms and legs, he did cost considerably

more. Those of you who have young children might understand some of the

humour behind that if you missed it.

In my opinion, the highlights of Bill 28 are beyond the attack of

any responsible opposition. The previous Mincome programme is extended

to more people over 65. The programme continues for people from 60 to

65 and, even more significant, we have extended the benefits to

encompass people from ages 55 to 59. All of these programmes are tied

to the cost of living, something that has not been done up till now and

something that I support wholeheartedly.

PREP: Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Programme. For the

first time, there's going to be a programme in this province that will

attempt to get people back into the work force who are able to work and

are now on social assistance. In conjunction with Canada Manpower, this

programme has been designed to get up to 12,000 people back into the

work force — people who are now having to use social assistance. Twelve

thousand jobs created by Mr. Ron Stew, who is directing the programme.

It's a programme I think all of us should be proud of.

Single-parent families, especially where the mother is the head of

the household, are increasing in numbers, not only in this jurisdiction

but almost everywhere in North America. This type of family is usually

deserted, left to fend for itself alone, badly in need of help if the

family unit is to stay together.

The GAIN programme provides extended health coverage for the mother

and children during periods of employment, works towards exemption of

more earned income to encourage independence, provides increased income

to meet the costs of shelter, food and clothing and, likely the most

important benefit to people, especially women in this particular

category, establishes a collection agency for alimony and support

payments on behalf of mothers in receipt of social assistance and their

children.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I'd like to say that I'm proud of the

minister who brought this programme forward. I'm very proud of his

staff. It's the type of legislation that everyone in this province

should support. I'm proud of being part of the government that has

brought it towards its fruition. Let's hope we pass it soon.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, when this bill was last discussed and debated, certainly a

number of questions were posed, and for the most part those were

answered at the time.

I'm just sorry that some of the other members which were in the

House then are not here today so that I might provide the further

answers, although I'm hoping that maybe they're listening on their

speakers in the offices.

The GAIN legislation, as was mentioned, provides a number of

benefits that previously didn't exist. Furthermore, it certainly gives

a guide to all in one very neat package for what exactly we intend to

do with respect to social services in British Columbia.

It allows us to provide the additional income in the areas of

greatest need, particularly the groups aged 55 to 59, and to also give

additional assistance to single parents and to the handicapped.

The question was posed as to why so much of this had to be dealt

with in regulation and why actually it could not be spelled out in the

Act. The answer is simple: you cannot, because it's changing too often

to govern these things in legislation. They must be dealt with through

regulation. This is historically so and it's being done again, and

actually we're now in the process of negotiating with the federal

government the highest possible rates that we can pass on to these

recipients, or to these potential recipients that we're attempting to

give additional assistance to.

Actually, comments were made with respect to the authority given in

the legislation to the minister, and I would like to point out now that

there's no more, no less, but certainly no more authority here than

there was in the previous legislation. In fact, it makes it very

specific, very clear, and removes many of the questions that might

otherwise have been put. It's spelled out very accurately in the Act so

that everyone will know just exactly what authority exists there and

what can be dealt with through regulation or otherwise.

The Act will allow us, as was mentioned, to establish a system of

incentives, benefits and other programmes for the purpose of

encouraging income assistance to work or gain work through training,

rehabilitation or other employment services.

It also, as a further encouragement, allows us to extend the health

benefits to single parents, ones taking employment, and to the

handicapped if they wish to take employment even for a short time.

It allows us to share costs of wages for handicapped people, and

this again is determined by regulation since much of the assistance to

employers employing the handicapped will be a cooperative effort

between ourselves and the Canada Manpower offices.

Again, we are negotiating now the highest rate and

[ Page 2925 ]

the greatest amount of benefit that might be extended to the

handicapped through these particular programmes. While we have some

assurances already from Canada Manpower as to the amount they will

share, we're still attempting to make it available to more and more of

the handicapped people that would like these services made available to

them.

For the first time, too, there is not only the penalty for

fraudulent claims, but there is the onus on the recipient of income

assistance to report any change of income, of circumstance or status.

The onus is now clearly, through legislation, on the recipient. If, in

fact, such reports are not made, then we can take whatever action is

required to assure that the requirements of the Act are being attended

to.

There's also a

section which deals with refusal to accept

employment. I think it's very clear in prior policy statements. We've

certainly made it clear there that if a recipient able and capable of

accepting employment refuses to do so for any number of reasons as

listed, then in fact they may be cleared ineligible for social

assistance.

The question is to whether, perhaps, there isn't too much discretion

given in this area and other areas is answered, I believe, best through

the

section of the Act which requires us to establish a tribunal to

receive and attend to any and all appeals that might come forth from

individuals or groups.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 28.

Motion approved.

Bill 28, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that we revert to order of Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

On vote 123: minister's office, $99, 58 1.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): As the committee

addresses itself to the several votes in this small Department of

Labour, I would like to say a few words at the outset which may assist

the members in the consideration of these estimates.

In the first place, let me say that the Department of Labour is too

often looked upon as one which involves itself almost entirely in the

resolution of matters which affect employees and employers or the

unions representing the employees and the employers. Certainly that is

the high-profile part of the department and one that attracts a

tremendous amount of attention. I don't in any way suggest that the

importance of those activities must not be recognized. And in so

saying, may I pay a special tribute to those members of the department

who have involved themselves, under Associate Deputy Minister Ken

Smith, in the matter of mediation services which are made available to

parties during the negotiation of collective agreements.

While one often reads of the activities of industrial inquiry

commissions, special mediators and other appointees of the minister's

office, let me assure you that by far the vast number of collective

agreements which are resolved in British Columbia, and requiring the

services of the Department of Labour, achieve fruition through the hard

work and long hours of the mediation officers. They are not subjected

to any great publicity, and so it should be, because the nature of

their involvement with the parties to collective bargaining

negotiations are such that they can best perform their activities when

they are not subjected to the glare of press coverage.

Nonetheless, these men in the mediation services are highly skilled

in matters of collective bargaining negotiations. They spend long, long

hours; they make themselves available at any time of the day or

throughout the week, and they separate themselves from their families

for considerable periods of time. I think that it bears recognition for

the service they perform to this province, and to the employers and the

employees upon whom our economy depends.

However, Mr. Chairman, aside from the aspect of mediation services,

collective bargaining relationships and those other activities relating

to employers, employees and their unions, I would like to draw specific

attention of the members to the other side of the department, and

particularly to that aspect of the department which falls under the

responsibility of the Associate Deputy Minister, Rangit Azad, and often

referred to as the manpower division — that aspect of the department

which covers pre-apprenticeship training, apprenticeship training,

industrial training and other manpower aspects. It's probably, quietly,

one of the most significant areas of responsibility that the Department

of Labour has.

In order for a province such as British Columbia to assume its

rightful role and to make a productive contribution to the economy of

this nation, and for the benefits of the citizens of this province, it

is essential that we have available to us a continuing supply of highly

skilled manpower. The activities of this division contribute, to a

major extent, to filling this great need.

As we embark upon new initiatives in economic development, one must always remember that

[ Page 2926 ]

however great the planning may be, unless we have the skilled men

and women in our work force, the initiatives will fail. They will fail

unless we seek other avenues to obtain that skilled manpower, either by

robbing existing industries, or indeed by achieving our manpower needs

through the processes of immigration.

Each of these activities, while they have been carried on in the

past, nonetheless create for this province very serious social

consequences. When a new industry achieves its manpower requirements by

borrowing the skilled employees from another, then it creates a

dislocation in an already existing and established industrial field.

Similarly, when we supply our needs for manpower through the process

of immigration, we deny to some of our own men and women, boys and

girls the opportunity to achieve a place in the work force, and as well

we present ourselves with other serious social problems — the provision

of houses, the matter of language training, and other similar aspects.

The manpower division performs another very major function, and that

is the co-ordination of programmes with the federal government. There

is a divided responsibility as between the provinces and the national

government in this whole field of manpower — indeed, manpower and

immigration.

Too often it is forgotten that under the British North America Act

the province has a responsibility with respect to matters of an

immigration nature. I assure you that through the Department of Labour

these things are not being ignored. It was my pleasure to attend a

federal-provincial conference in the city of Toronto a few weeks ago,

at which all of the manpower ministers of the 10 provinces were

addressing themselves to this particular problem — and while it may

seem to be insignificant, some significant advance was made at that

meeting following a number of staff meetings prior to the meeting of

ministers; and we have finally achieved with the national government a

consultative process which has never been in place before.

We look forward, at the meetings to be held in late September or

early October of this year, for a continuation of those activities

which will ensure that there is a better co-ordination as between the

two levels of government in this very important field, each having a

responsibility.

The decision to consult is one which is extremely important to

ensure that the programme, of the national government and the

programmes carried out by the several provinces do not conflict but

rather support each other.

In this field of manpower, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources

remarked in his closing remarks on his legislation a few moments ago,

he is involved too. It is interesting to note the number of departments

of government who come together on this whole subject of manpower. The

Department of Economic Development, the Department of Education,

Department of Human Resources and indeed the Department of Health as

well are all directly involved in this concept of manpower. It is with

some pride that I find that the Department of Labour is in a position

to assist those other departments in a co-ordinating function in this

most important responsibility.

I might say, with respect to pre-apprenticeship training and

apprenticeship training, that this government, by actions on the part

of the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and I, together

with our senior staff, are planning new and exciting initiatives in

this regard.

We find that for too long there has not been co-ordination between

these two departments in this particular field, and as a consequence

too little attention has been given to vocational and industrial

training in our educational system.

It has always been easy in this province for a young man or woman

who decides to pursue his or her career in education to go to one of

the learning institutions and take one of the subjects of arts, for

example, or to study the sciences, or in the professions to achieve

their destiny in that particular regard. The government has made

available significant facilities to enable this kind of training to

take place. Yet far too little attention has been paid to vocational

and industrial training.

The consequence of this has been that in British Columbia we find

that we are today lacking in those skills — mechanical trades — which

are so essential for our economic development. Let me assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that as a result of the actions which are being taken by the

Department of Labour and the Department of Education, together with

active support from the Department of Economic Development, this

government intends to see that that oversight is corrected in the

shortest possible time.

Mr. Chairman, beginning with the individual votes there will be

questions which members may wish to ask dealing with specific details

of the departmental functions, and I look forward to their contribution

in this debate.

MR. LLOYD: I have a few comments I'd like to make on the

Department of Labour's estimates. I am very pleased to hear the

minister stress the cooperation that is going to be realized between

these unemployment insurance programmes — the hiring services — the

Department of Human Resources and the manpower services under the

Department of Labour to make sure that a better opportunity is given

and more incentive is given to people to gain employment.

I think, along the line of the job-training

[ Page 2927 ]

programmes, another thing we should try to encourage is an

apprenticeship programme again in the province. In a lot of the

industries when you hire a worker off the street, you are expected to

pay the going wage for him. This creates a problem for industry which

is already working on a limited profit margin.

I think it's something that was common practice in the old country

years ago to have an apprentice wage where, when you are breaking an

employee in and he's gaining experience, the company is given a little

relief on the wages. By the same token it creates an incentive to hire

students or people not so well qualified. I think this is something

that we should look at. I don't know what this resulted from really,

probably a certain amount from union activities, insisting that people

coming off the street get the same wages as the union worker who is

operating next to them.

I know that particularly in some summer hiring programmes like the

Forests department, this has created a problem in hiring students. Back

a few years ago it was common that they would be hired at a lesser rate

than the regular employees, and because they were inexperienced and

young, no one expected them to put in a full heavy day shift. But when

you have the circumstance of them coming out and being hired at the

full wages of regular employees, I think it's only natural that their

supervisory staff will make a bigger effort to control their activities

and ensure that they are trying to live up to the production of the

older and more experienced operators.

I think it creates ill feeling both ways. The people who have spent

years learning their trade...all of a sudden a young fellow comes along

and he's getting the same wages as they are. So I think this is

unnecessary and it also creates an atmosphere that you're entitled to

these wages. It's just a going thing. It's not something you have to

develop a skill for or put any particular effort into.

Again, I think this is pretty dangerous to young people nowadays.

They lose their perspective and sense of values, and I think it's

something that should be looked at quite hard. While I think we all

realize students going ahead in their studies require as much funding

as possible, still when you look at the overall number of students that

could be employed if the wages were a little more reasonable, I think

it would really be beneficial to a larger number if these wages were

structured along an apprenticeship-type of wage.

One other thing I hope the Labour department is going to look at is

the closed shop and the union hiring hall practices which restrict and

disallow local residents opportunities to work on projects in their own

areas. Here I am referring to highway projects or hydro line clearing

projects, gas or oil line construction, railway construction and so on.

Quite often the hiring practices are controlled through a union hall

and people are sent all the way from the coast up to different areas of

the community, while residents living right in that community can't

gain employment on that particular project. I think it creates

unnecessary hardship plus an unnecessary expense of putting up

accommodation for workers from other parts of the province.

Quite often they have a problem even finding enough qualified

workers, and I think, because of the additional cost to the public

purse, that it's something we should look at. We have an instance right

now at Hudson Hope. I was talking to some people up there the other

day. They can't get work on this project No. 2 of the Hydro programme

because the union hiring hall decrees that you have to belong to that

certain union. They're sending the people out of the lower mainland and

not allowing local residents to join the union.

Speaking of union problems and what they create for employment, I

think the right to picket allied organizations and the strikes or

walkouts by key unions are things that are going to have to be looked

at in this province. When we have the type of unemployment that we're

facing these days, I think it's very essential that the Labour

department studies very carefully this right to strike allied unions. I

believe it's been used indiscriminately many times and it's forcing a

lot of people who aren't even concerned in that particular labour

confrontation onto the unemployment roles as well. Besides which, of

course, it's stopping many of our key industries by not enabling them

to keep a steady work programme operating.

The other efforts that I think the Labour department should look

into is trying to establish or restore the rights of the individual

members in unions...by secret ballots, on whether they're satisfied

with labour negotiations on their behalf and on the operation and

election of the officers in their unions. I am not trying to

generalize, because you can't generalize. Some of the unions are very

fair and have provided very worthwhile services for their members. But

it's been heard time and again in the last few years that the larger

and ever-larger unions are getting completely unresponsive to the

individual members. I think that's quite dangerous, particularly when

you see government employee unions banding together in one federal

union.

I think the individual member is a pretty small member of that

organization and certainly his rights and his problems aren't going to

get a fair hearing unless we are very careful with the responsibility

that should be allocated to that particular union.

Another problem, I think, that we didn't really have to face this

year was the changes in the Minimum Wage Act that came in just

recently. It seems rather odd with 90,000 people out of work in

[ Page 2928 ]

the province that we should be looking at raising the minimum wage

at this particular stage of the game. I think this is something that

could have been let go for a while. Some of the smaller businesses

operating in the province just use part-time help. This has created

quite a hardship for them in securing a stable work force.

The other part of the change in the Minimum Wage Act relates to the

overtime benefits, and I can't really see where this had that much

connection with minimum wages as such. It certainly has created a

problem in seasonal industries such as the farming or logging

industries where they're working on a very restricted season and when

the weather permits. I think we've all heard the saying: "You make hay

while the sun shines." Well, certainly it's just as true in the logging

as it is in the farming. This is something I'd like to have the Labour

department take a very good look into because I think it's creating a

lot of unemployment at this particular time.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Labour and his staff for

their efforts made over the past several months to restore the BCR, for

one, to operation. This strike was really causing a very crippling

effect on our entire economy up north. I think the patience that the

minister showed and the fortitude in sticking with this and getting

this problem resolved....

It's unfortunate that we had to have that much government

intervention, but certainly this is something that, unless the unions

are going to take a more responsible stand, this government is going to

have to show leadership in. We just can't let the public or the

taxpayers be blackmailed, and I don't think we can bear that sort of

thing at all. But I would like to compliment his staff. I think they've

done a terrific job on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I'll be very brief in my comments, through you, to the minister.

I first want to compliment the minister and his staff in the way

they've handled the labour situation in the province. It has been very

trying times and I think they've done an excellent job.

I do