1977 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, AUGUST 30, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5063 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Development of Queen Charlotte oil shale. Mr. Lea –– 5063

Price of propane. Mr. Macdonald –– 5064

Voracious red-bellied piranha. Mr. Gibson –– 5064

B.C. rail settlements. Mr. Lauk –– 5064

Employment of Pages. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5065

Statistics Act (Bill 52) Committee stage.

section 7 amendment On

section 14.

Mr. Lauk –– 5067 Mr. Lauk –– 5068

Division on the amendment –– 5067 Hon. Mr. Phillips ––

section 13. Division on third reading –– 5068

Mr. Lauk –– 5067

Mineral Act (Bill 73) Committee stage

section 7. On

section 45 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 5068 Mr. Gibson –– 5075

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5069 Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5075

Mr. Lauk –– 5070 On

section 58.

section 9 amendment Mr. Lea –– 5075

Mr. Gibson –– 5070 Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5075

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5071 On

section 60.

Mr. Lea –– 5071 Mr. Skelly –– 5075

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5071 On

section 69.

section 11. Mr. Gibson –– 5076

Mr. Gibson –– 5072 Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5076

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5072 On

section 74.

section 22 as amended. Mr. Gibson –– 5076

Mr. Gibson –– 5073 Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5076

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5073

Ombudsman Act (Bill 63) Committee stage

section 8 as amended On

section 15.

Mr. Gibson –– 5077 Mr. Macdonald –– 5078

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5077 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5078

Report and third reading –– 5079

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 84) Committee stage

section 9. Mr. Wallace –– 5080

Mr. Lea –– 5079 Mr. Gibson –– 5082

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5079 Division on

section 9 –– 5083

Mr. Gibson –– 5079 Division on third reading –– 5083

Mr. Macdonald –– 5080

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 86) Committee stage.

section 1. On

section 3.

Mr. Baines –– 5084 Mr. Wallace –– 5088

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5084 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5088

Mr. Wallace –– 5085 Ms. Brown –– 5089

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5086 Mr. Barnes –– 5091

Ms. Brown –– 5086 Mr. Lauk –– 5092

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5087 Mr. Levi –– 5093

Mr. Levi –– 5088 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5094

Land Commission Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 88) Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Introduction and first reading –– 5095

Appendix –– 5097

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. I.J. Kempf (Omineca) : With us in the gallery today are two couples whom I am very happy to introduce: from Smithers in that beautiful Bulkley Valley, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Sturgeon, and from Courtenay in the constituency of Comox, Mr. and Mrs. George Smith. George is the president of the Comox Social Credit Constituency Association. I would like the House to welcome both these couples.

Mr. C. Barber (Victoria) : I have a couple of special guests in the gallery today. They are here from the constituency of Richmond. They are primarily in Victoria to visit their son, David, of whom they are especially proud. David is a friend of mine and the president of the James Bay community association. Their names are Mae and Megan Reilly and I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Hon. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver-Point Grey) : Mr. Speaker, the members might notice, the guests in the gallery today who are drawing out a little bit, and I would like to introduce them. They are two Oregon web-foots. Mr. Ron McMullan and Mr. Doug McMullan. They are with Mr. Harold Hughes of Birmingham, California, and Mr. George Rush, from the riding of Point Grey, which I have the honour to represent. These four gentlemen have just spent a week canoeing around the Bowron lakes, and I would like to remind the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) that this was done last week, and that it is possible to do so in the pouring rain.

Mr. C.S. Rogers (Vancouver South) : From the great constituency of Vancouver South I would like to introduce you to a very good Socred and a good friend of mine, Mr. Ab Berat.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie) : We have in the galleries today a former resident of my riding now residing in Duncan, Mr. Eric Pretty, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

Mr. W.S. King (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Mr. Speaker, this is not an oral question; I ask leave of the House to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Mr. King : Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to the attention of the ...

Mr. Speaker : I'm sorry, hon. members, I will put the question again. I heard no negative reply. Shall leave be granted? I heard a no that time, hon. member.

Mr. King : Did that come from the government benches, Mr. Speaker? I think that came from the gallery.

Mr. Speaker : It is not necessary to identify it as long as it came from members that are seated in the floor of the House, hon. member.

Mr. King : I'm denied leave to make a statement then.

Mr. Speaker : I heard a no, hon. member. As you know, the rules of the House say that a unanimous leave must be granted.

Oral questions.

DEVELOPMENT OF QUEEN

CHARLOTTE OIL SHALE

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines. John Robertson, president of Intercoast Resources Corporation Ltd. of Vancouver, has said that the Ministry of Mines has given written and verbal assurances to that company that permits will be issued to that company to do development of the oil shale on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I wonder if the minister would table with the House all correspondence and/or agreements between the Ministry of Mines and that company, Intercoast Resources Corporation Ltd., or any other companies pertaining to that oil shell development.

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources) ; Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and obtain copies of the correspondence to which the member for Prince Rupert is referring.

Mr. Lea : Just for clarification, I didn't quite understand the minister. Is he saying that he wants to come back and file those with the House later?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. minister took the question as notice.

Mr. Lea : No, he did more than that.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I took the matter as notice.

[ Page 5064 ]

PRICE OF PROPANE

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East) : To the Minister Energy, Transport and Communications: in view of the announcement of the Energy Commission that the price of propane will go up 3.2 cents a gallon, will the minister. . . ? In view of the Energy Commission report, which was then under Dr. Andrew Thompson, which indicated that prices of propane in a two and a half year period had gone up by 100 per cent in this province and that half of that was pure and excessive profit, will the minister order the Energy Commission to reconsider the matter in view of the excessive profits mi that industry and the excessive price levels that have already been achieved?

Mr. Speaker : The part of the question which is a question and that part which is a statement is something else.... But the part that was a question I think the hon. minister can reply to if he wishes.

Hon. J. Davis (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications) : Mr. Speaker, the Energy Commission has studied this matter again very carefully and made its recommendation with the knowledge of all the facts. I don't think it's necessary to inquire further into this matter. A decision has been taken and I believe it's the right one.

Mr. Macdonald : On a supplementary, since this increase goes against this report which was released in June, 1976, will the minister not ask the Energy Commission to reconsider since there are about 17,000 families in B.C. that depend upon propane? If the price is excessive, will he not ask the commission to reconsider, in the light of this report?

Hon. Mr. Davis : Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly study the latest report carefully, but I'm not prepared to say anything more than that at this present time.

VORACIOUS RED-BELLIED PIRANHA

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. This relates to recent reports in the newspaper about what's described as the "voracious red-bellied piranha" which is being sold by the hundreds in aquariums around B.C. I'd ask the minister if he's aware of these reports and if he has any indication from his department as to whether or not there is a possibility of these beasts surviving in any of the rivers or streams of British Columbia?

Hon. R.S. Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation) : I thank the member opposite for the question. Of course, it is a matter of law that non-indigenous species may not be introduced into our waters without permit. Notwithstanding that, the possibility of an inadvertent introduction is always a matter of concern. I'll take his question as notice.

B.C. RAIL SETTLEMENTS

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre) : I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the minister told the House that B.C. Rail was not in negotiation with KRM and Keen construction to settle their contract claims involving fraudulent misrepresentation that are presently in the throes of a court action. On August 23 a B.C. Railway spokesman said that the railway was recalculating the work done by Keen and KRM. Could the minister indicate to the House why BCR is doing such a recalculation if there are no such negotiations?

Hon. D.M. Phillips (Minister of Economic Development) : As you know, when the Dease Lake line was closed down, the board of directors would certainly want to know at this time what portion of the contracts had been completed, how much work had been completed and what the cost of negotiating out of the contract would be. The fact that they're doing this certainly does not mean that they're negotiating to settle the claim out of court, as the first member for Vancouver Centre should know.

Mr. Lauk : On a supplementary to the minister, could the minister indicate when this recalculation is complete and if the information concerning these contracts will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Phillips : Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have a very good independent board of directors running the British Columbia Railway at the present time. As a matter of fact, the railway is probably running better than it has ever been run in a number of years. Since this matter is being handled very ably by that very independent and very capable board of directors, I'll take the question as notice.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. If he refers to that board of directors as independent....

Mr. Speaker : Order, please. The minister took the question as notice. There is not a....

Mr. Gibson : He took the second question as notice. I have a supplementary to the first question, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister refers to that board of directors as independent, I'd like to ask him why the chairman, in

[ Page 5065 ]

answer to a simple question from me as to costs on Railwest bids, refused to answer directly and referred me to the minister to get my answer, who, of course, doesn't give answers in this House.

Employment Of Pages

Hon. W.R. Bennett (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Speaker. It has come to my attention that there has been some uncertainty placed over the employment of the pages who serve us all so well in this House. This uncertainty is news to all members of this House. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could report to the House whether any uncertainty has been created over their continuing employment. Could you advise the members of this situation? I believe all members of this House would be concerned if such action had been taken.

Mr. Speaker : Order, please. The question is improper in that it is out of order to ask the Speaker of the House to comment on a matter in question period. However, it is a matter that I will certainly check into, since it has only been brought to my attention in the last few minutes.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) referred to someone as being a liar. I certainly hope that it wasn't an hon. member of this House or the Speaker. I would ask him to make a general withdrawal as it not only reflects upon this House but further reflects on his conduct and those of his seat mates.

Mr. Speaker : Hon. Premier, replying to your point of order, I heard no such statement. But if it was made and other members heard it, then it would be proper for the hon. member for Nelson-Creston to withdraw such a comment.

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston) : Sure. Whenever the Premier's in trouble, he lies. He lied to people about removal of rent controls and he's trying to lie his way out of this.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. member for Nelson-Creston will irrevocably withdraw the suggestion and the statement that the hon. Premier lied to this House.

Mr. Nicolson : No, Mr. Speaker. He lied to the voters prior to December 12,1975.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. member will withdraw the statement.

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre) : He was trying to get elected at the time.

Mr. Speaker : That isn't sufficient, hon. member, to qualify your withdrawal. It must be an unqualified withdrawal.

Mr. Nicolson : I think what the Premier has attempted to do here is a sham. I think it's well known, but if I have offended hon. members I will withdraw any imputation of wrong-doing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : That's not good enough. I'm surprised that those members continuously abuse the House with these charges. Will that member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who abuses this House more than anyone, stop speaking from his seat?

Mr. Speaker : Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : I would think, Mr. Speaker, the number of judicial inquiries that have proven their charges to be groundless and false would have discouraged these members from wild accusations. I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, to have the member for Nelson-Creston withdraw his statement that he recently made and I ask you to bring that member to order.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Mr. Speaker : Will the hon. members please take their seats? Speaking to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, it is the tradition of the House, hon. member, that when you're asked to make a withdrawal, it's not a qualified withdrawal but an unconditional withdrawal. Anything less than that leaves the suggestion that it was only to satisfy the requirements of the Chair and not to satisfy all of the hon. members of this House. I must ask you to withdraw the statement and the charge of lying, irrevocably and without question.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Nicolson : Mr. Speaker, without....

Mr. King : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I must deal with the matter concerning the member for Nelson-Creston before I can recognize another point of order, hon. member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker : I am dealing with the matter of

[ Page 5066 ]

withdrawing an unparliamentary statement; then I will recognize you.

Mr. Nicolson : Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn in the way which I've withdrawn and it's been perfectly acceptable. I withdraw any imputation of wrong-doing on behalf of any hon. members.

Mr. King : You're being partisan, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Speaker : If you recall, I asked all hon. members to take their seats.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : Mr. Speaker, the withdrawal did not encompass the charge of lying. I wish that member to specifically withdraw the charge of lying, Mr. Speaker. His apology was qualified. It was not that of an honourable member, and, as such, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to ask that member to withdraw the specific charge he made.

Mr. Speaker : Hon. members, I believe.... It is my opinion that on the final time the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) got to his feet, he did make a proper withdrawal.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : He did not.

Mr. Speaker : I'm prepared to examine the Hansard record very carefully, and if it is found that the withdrawal was qualified or in any way was not as forthright as it should have been, I will certainly bring it to the member's attention, as the record in Hansard will show.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : On a point of order. If you were to find that the member hasn't withdrawn as an hon. member and indeed, has played games in this Legislature, you will ask for that unqualified withdrawal at a later time. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker : I am prepared to look at the Hansard record. If the withdrawal is not on the basis that it should be, it will certainly come back before the House.

Mr. King : Mr. Speaker, I would make this point: it is up to the Speaker to rule on the adequacy of withdrawals, and the Speaker's ruling should not be challenged by the Premier or anyone else. I would also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on previous occasions, if you will refer to Hansard, it has been deemed adequate in this House to make the kind of withdrawal the member for Nelson-Creston made, without specifically citing the offensive language. That has been ruled previously.

Mr. Speaker : I will certainly look at the Hansard very closely.

Hon. members, since the question period, or at least a part of it, has been taken up with the discussion and points of order which we have dealt with, I wonder if the House is prepared to grant leave to extend the question period for the time that was lost. Can the Clerks-at-the-Table tell me the number of minutes involved?

I'm told by the Clerks-at-the-Table that we lost six minutes from question period today. Is it agreed that we extend the question period for six minutes?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker : I hear a "no, " hon. members. Sorry. If a "no" is heard by the Speaker, it ends the matter of leave.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard) : On a point of order. Can you tell me whether this is a tactic which the government is going to be allowed to get away with indefinitely? Whenever they don't want to answer questions, are they going to be able to abuse the question period? What are you afraid of, you cowardly little man over there?

Mr. Speaker : Order, please. Hon. members, it would seem that the House is in a very testy mood this afternoon. I would suggest further that it's improper, as the hon. member for Burrard knows, to get up on a point of order, to be recognized, and then to severely chastise the members of the House, not raising a point of order.

There have been a number of instances in question period, and at this time this afternoon, which are completely at odds with the parliamentary process. I would ask all the hon. members to contain themselves and get on with the business of the House.

Mr. King : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition has a right to know, regarding the matter raised by the Premier, whether the employment of the Pages is in jeopardy or not. Although the Speaker indicated that was an improper question to be directed to the Speaker, certainly the employment of the Pages does reside under his jurisdiction. I would appreciate knowing whether or not it's factual that the 14 Pages now employed have been given 24 hours and summarily dismissed.

Mr. Speaker : This is a matter, hon. member, that I will have to report to the House on because I have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) : It's already been asked. Weren't you here?

[ Page 5067 ]

Mr. King : Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an undertaking from you, sir, that you would investigate this very serious matter.

Mr. Speaker : I have indicated that already, hon. member.

Mr. King : Well, you haven't heard me out yet, Mr. Speaker. What I'm asking is that you take this under advisement and report back to the House today because it's a very urgent and important matter to all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker : Obviously you were not listening to what I had to say, hon. member. I have just indicated to the House that I would check into this matter as soon as I am able to do so.

Mr. King : And report back today?

Mr. Speaker : I would presume so, yes.

Mr. King : Thank you.

Orders of the day.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General) : Mr. Speaker, with all sweetness and light, committee on Bill 32.

STATISTICS ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Lauk : Mr. Chairman, I'll just briefly outline the opposition's reason for proposing this amendment to this Act. This

section 7, among other sections in this Act, will require individuals to file returns of private, confidential business information to the Ministry of Economic Development. The opposition says that tremendous power should not be given to such a statistics branch, because the statistics branch is under the control of a minister who does not have the confidence of the business community in terms of this single, very important virtue, and that is confidentiality.

The minister's executive assistant, Arthur Weeks, was fired because of lack of confidentiality. The minister's office itself has so many leaks in it that it's the first time that we have seen the ship of state leaking from the top. Mr. Chairman, its incredible how this minister could have the temerity to come before this committee – this chamber – and ask for this kind of power.

Secondly, business people all over this province are sick and tired of constantly having to fill out forms. They spend something like 10 per cent of their week filling out questionnaires and forms and tax returns and everything else. We are overgoverned, overtaxed and underemployed in this province, Mr. Chairman, and this minister isn't helping one little bit. I urge this committee to please accept this amendment and not have this unfortunate minister, who is reeling from crisis to crisis and from inquiry to inquiry, having this kind of power.

I have moved that in

section 7, the words in the second to last line shall be struck out, and substituted therefore shall be the word "may", so that it will read: "A person having the custody or charge of records may make the records available to the director or person authorized by the director.” Make it permissive, so that if a businessman in this province does not have the confidence and does not feel comfortable in providing confidential information, he won't be forced into it by this totalitarian regime and by this unfortunate

section 7.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 14

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Wallace, G.S.

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

NAYS – 26

Waterland

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Mr. Lauk requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

Mr. Lauk : The tremendous penalties created by

section 13 for people who do not make returns should be noted, Mr. Chairman. This is the kind of iron-handed, heavy-handed control that this minister and this government want over the small business people of this province. "A person who makes a false

[ Page 5068 ]

declaration, statement, or return in the performance of his duties ... commits an offence and is liable to . . ." a $5,000 penalty. This is the gravity of this kind of Act. This is the penalty against persons who may take an oath of secrecy. We'll be dealing in sections 14 and 15 with the penalties facing persons who do not file their returns and so on. I think everyone should be cognizant of the nature of this statute. This minister and this ministry aren't fooling around. People who will refuse to make returns are subject to penalties under sections 14 and 15 as well.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

Mr. Lauk : It says here: "A person who, without lawful excuse" – and we don't know whether there's any lawful excuse – "refuses or neglects to answer, or answers falsely, a question required to obtain information for the purposes of this Act that is asked by a person employed under this Act. . . ." What does that mean? I mean, if somebody is employed by the statistics branch to clean out the ashtrays and asks somebody a question. . . . "or refuses or neglects to furnish information to fill in, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the

schedule or form ... commits an offence and is liable to a penalty."

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of thing that is happening in this province. First of all, I don't think that's intra vires in the power of this province. I think that should be tested in the courts constitutionally, because this is an offence against the old adage that a person is not required to give information that may be incriminating. What about that?

This is the kind of approach that this government is taking towards the small businessman of this province. It's an invasion of their privacy and a needless attempt to get meaningless statistics. Again, it's an example of the seriousness of the

section that we have just unfortunately passed,

section 7.

Hon. Mr. Phillips : I'd just like to point out that it should be noted that the penalty for respondents is really only one-tenth of what it is for employees who do not honour the confidentiality of the respondent's information. I think it should be pointed out that the member for Vancouver Centre was talking just a moment ago about confidentiality. That's one of the reasons, of course, that the penalty is a stiff penalty – so that confidentiality of information supplied will indeed be kept confidential,

Sections 14 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Phillips : Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 32, Statistics Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Phillips : Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 32, Statistics Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 28

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Lloyd

Kerster

Kempf

Kahl

Haddad

Vander Zalm

Nielsen

Bawlf

Mair

Williams

McClelland

Davis

Waterland

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

Gibson

NAYS – 15

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Wallace, G.S.

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 73.

MINERAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 7 as amended – continued.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, if I can just find the section, I want to ask the minister a question on it. In

[ Page 5069 ]

this

section the minerals can only be exploited in a park on the recommendation of certain persons or agencies, as it reads: "On the recommendation of the person, corporation or government that is responsible for the park. . ." Now in provincial parks I take it that it's the government of the province of British Columbia, and that the government itself is not in a position to make a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so presumably it must be some minister. I want to ask this minister which minister it is who would act for the government in making such a recommendation in terms of a provincial park.

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources) : Mr. Chairman, it would come under the auspices of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, and the recommendation would emanate from the director of provincial parks.

Mr. Gibson : So the minister is assuring us then, in other words, that there will be no mining in provincial parks unless there's a recommendation from the minister in charge of provincial parks to that effect. Is he giving us that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : That is what the

section says.

Mr. Gibson : In that regard then, I wanted to ask the minister in charge of provincial parks under what circumstances he would give that kind of recommendation. For example, would he hold a public hearing first or something like that?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : He wants an example.

Mr. Gibson : No. I want to hear from the other minister.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : On July 25,1974, order-in-council 1465 read as follows:

"Pursuant to the Mineral Act and upon the recommendations

of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent

of the executive council, orders that:

whereas a recommendation has been received

from the director of the provincial parks branch, who is responsible for the

administration of Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park, that the mining operation

by Silver Standard Mines Ltd., be allowed to proceed within the park. Silver

Star Mines Ltd., is authorized to explore for, and develop minerals on, the

following recorded and Crown-granted mineral claims within the boundaries of

Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park: BOB mineral claim No. 17637; Charlie mineral

claim, the Granite mineral claim; the Sunrise mineral claim; the Grandview mineral

claim; the Scranton mineral claim; Tecumseh mineral claim; the Pontiac mineral

claim."

It's signed by Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and Eileen Dailly, presiding member of the executive council. It's under the recommendations of the director of provincial parks. My consternation here, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Do your own research, Mr. First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .

But my concern with this kind of order-in-council is that there isn't a requirement spelled out in the order-in-council that they have to abide by the rules and regulations of the Mines Regulation Act, which is the one where it's necessary that security be placed to ensure that proper reclamation work is undertaken after the exploration or the mining programme might be undertaken. That's what the Mines Regulation Act spells out.

This order-in-council should have said that this work that is being undertaken, that was advocated and promoted and passed by the former socialist government, should have had the kind of environmental safeguards which exist in the Mines Regulation Act. This order-in-council should have had that spelled out.

Mr. Gibson : I share the minister's shock if the circumstances are complete in his recounting of them. But I am sorry to see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) leaving the chamber, because the important thing is that he is the minister who, the terms of this Act, would have to make a recommendation for mining in any provincial park. What I want to hear from him is an assurance to this House that he would have a public hearing before he makes such a recommendation. I think that's a minimum, and I think it's shocking that that minister just walked out of this Legislature as that suggestion was being made.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Just in response ....

Mr. Chairman : One moment, please. Hon. member, the questions under a bill must be addressed to the minister who is responsible for the bill. Your question. . . .

Mr. Gibson : On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, any member has a right to speak in this debate.

Mr. Chairman : I fully appreciate that, but you should address your questions to the minister involved.

[ Page 5070 ]

Hon. Mr. Chabot : It appears that the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano is taking off on the point that was made last night by a member of the official opposition, dealing with the need for public hearings. In response to the member, I asked a question. In the event that a Crown-granted mineral claim. . . . There is no right for exploration within provincial parks in British Columbia.

But certain Crown-granted mineral claims exist, permanent alienations from the Crown that have appeared within parks for a variety of reasons: some because of park boundary expansion; some because the park was superimposed on the Crown-granted mineral claim. So that permanent alienation is in place, and sometimes the government has to make a decision as to whether, under strict environmental controls, the development will take place or not. Now the member is suggesting there should be a public hearing. Let's take a hypothetical park – Hamber Provincial Park, which is....

Mr. Gibson : That's not a hypothetical park. It's an actual park.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : No, it's not a hypothetical park. It's a hypothetical example that I'm using. But....

Mr. Gibson : You think it's a hypothetical park already, ruling it out of order.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : No, no. Hamber Park's a great park, Mr. Chairman. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano is trying to put words in my mouth, which I won't tolerate.

Mr. Gibson : No, I'm quoting you. You've got enough already.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Where should the public hearing be held? In Hamber Provincial Park, where there are no inhabitants, where no one lives; hundreds of miles, basically, from civilization? Or should it be held in Vancouver, Skookumchuck, Prince George, Lone Prairie or in Stewart? Where should the public hearing be held?

Mr. Gibson : I want to assure the minister I wouldn't try to put

words in his mouth; he has more than enough already. As to where the hearing

should be held with respect to any particular provincial park, I would have

enough faith in the minister's imagination and wit to at least entrust him

with that minor duty. But if he needs advice on such things as that, I would

suggest he might take ads in the principal dailies and weeklies throughout the

province, giving notice of a proposed permission to mine by the Ministry of

Mines on some mineral claim within a designated provincial park, and asking

those who are interested in being heard on such matters to identify themselves

to the minister and his ministry. The minister would thereby be given guidance

as a result of these advertisements as to where the principle public interest

was located, and I would hope that hearings would then be held at those spots.

If the minister couldn't figure out something that simple himself, I don't

know what he's doing conducting a reasonably complicated Act like this through

this chamber.

Mr. Lauk : Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should answer the legitimate questions of the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . In particular, he shouldn't be so frivolous as to suggest that the public hearing could not be located in any specific area simply because a park is a wilderness area. It seems to me that the closest major metropolis or largely populated area should be used as a public hearing site, and I think it's a good idea. I repeat what the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, that as a predominant goal, any government of this province should be against mining in parks just as a question of principle.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman : The amendment, hon. member, I believe, is in orders of the day.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman : No, hon. member. That's not a requirement of the Chair.

On the amendment.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, this

section refers to security that must be given. I would ask the minister what constitutes acceptable security under the terms of this legislation. Many persons in the mining business, particularly starting out, are not rich in cash or negotiable securities, and sometimes have most of their available funds tied up in mining works of one kind or another, or titles to various claims and so on. What view does the minister take as to what is acceptable security under this section?

[ Page 5071 ]

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Finance establishes what is acceptable as security. Security in this instance would be cash, certified cheques or B.C. parity bonds.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, that's what I was afraid of. In other words, it's like the old story about the banker: if you don't need any money, your credit's good and he'll lend you lots. This is a case where miners might be able to put up security that is perfectly good, but that doesn't happen to be in that particular form – let us say stocks or bonds in other governments, perfectly secure, or in blue-chip corporations or whatever it may be.

Because of the state of the financial world at that time, it's inconvenient, not to say costly, for them to liquidate and convert into the particular narrow form of security required by the Ministry of Finance. So without raising any more fuss about it, I would ask the minister if he would look into this and consult with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) as to whether these requirements mightn't be loosened, retaining the protection of the Crown, but providing more and more flexibility in what is actually considered to be security.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to discuss that with the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Lea : Mr. Chairman,

section 9 basically is 12 (2) and (3) from the old Act combined. In the old Act, under compensation for damages at the end of subsection (3) , it says: " . . . such compensation, in the case of a dispute, to be determined by the court having jurisdiction in mining disputes, with or without a jury."

section 9, which encompasses both of those.... The Liberal leader had a good point on security. First of all, I don't think there's an appeal – it doesn't appear there's an appeal – on the amount of security that is going to satisfy the gold commissioner, by the owner of the land. I wonder what the owner of the land can do if the gold commissioner doesn't set a security that seems reasonable to the owner of the land. It seems that the old Act deals with that better. At least it spells out that he can go to court with or without a jury, but in the new one it doesn't.

It just says: "Where a free miner causes loss of damage by his entry, he shall, except with respect to entry on the railway land referred to in this section, compensate the occupant or owner or both." But it doesn't say how,

whereas it does in the old. I just wonder whether the minister has that placed somewhere else, or what we can expect.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, that wasn't deemed necessary to continue in the Act. The courts will have jurisdiction in this respect.

Mr. Lea : It wasn't deemed necessary that the court should have jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : The court would have jurisdiction.

Mr. Lea : They did under the old Act; they don't under the new.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Yes, they still would.

Mr.Lea : How?

Mr. Chairman : Hon. members, kindly address the Chair.

Mr. Lea : Mr. Chairman, you don't know the answer, I don't think. To the minister, through the Chair: I still don't quite understand. In the old Act it says that if you're not satisfied with the gold commissioner's amount of security, you can appeal to the court. Under the new Act,

section 9 says that the gold commissioner can set the amount of security, but it doesn't really spell out any appeal where that person could appeal to the owner.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : To the courts.

Mr. Lea : To the courts? But it doesn't say that. Is that a question? I don't quite understand how the minister can say that. I think if this got to court, Mr. Chairman, and the judge were to take a look at the old Act, which says they can appeal to the court, but under the new Act it says they don't have to, he would probably say that obviously the government didn't intend that this new one should end up in court on appeal. The minister is saying that in his opinion, if the owner of land is riot satisfied with the security as set by the gold commissioner, then the owner of that land can appeal to the court. Has the minister got some advice on that?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary for the thing to be spelled out. There are many cases that go to court without being specifically referred to in a dispute. You have access to the courts. Specifically that is what you have under this legislation without it being spelled out. Your next step in the case of a dispute is to the courts. You raised the question of a judge having some concern about the wording of the previous Act and the wording of the present Act. Apparently the

Interpretation Act does not allow him to weigh the two Acts.

Mr. Lea : The minister and the government are on record as saying that is the intent. That satisfies me.

[ Page 5072 ]

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, we have always tried in mining legislation in British Columbia to remove discretion insofar as it is possible and put the rights and the obligations of free miners into statute rather than regulation or ministerial discretion. This

section gives the minister an enormous amount of discretionary power.

Let us assume that a claim is staked, drilled, and in due course found to be of considerable value. The minister can deny the production of that mineral wealth that has been discovered by simply and arbitrarily withholding the rights to use the surface. Without the surface, particularly if it is a large enough area, it becomes impossible or uneconomical to produce the minerals below the surface. What bothers me about this particular clause first of all is the completely arbitrary discretion and, secondly, the lack of any compensation if a mineral discovery, for possibly very good reason, should be rendered valueless by the minister's refusal to grant surface rights.

This is similar to the powers which the previous government took and against which the current minister used to argue so forcibly. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, what was called the production lease, whereby before a person could produce and exploit a mineral discovery, he or she had to obtain from the then minister what was called a production lease. This was very strongly deplored by the then Social Credit opposition. I deplored it very much at that time, too. This is the same kind of thing. This isn't exactly a production lease, but it is a surface-rights lease.

The minister can arbitrarily, without reason, without hearing and without appeal, deny the use of surface rights without any compensation. As I say, I do not argue with the principle that there are surface areas in the province of British Columbia which, because of their particular value for other uses, should not be used for mining.

In a case such as that, where there has been permission granted in the first instance to expend money for the purposes of discovering and delineating a mineral claim, there should then be a provision for compensation. I would be glad to hear

The Minister's reaction to that position.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman,

section 11 specifically states that this situation – any restrictions that might take place – may only take place after an inspection of the site has been carried out. That would only be done under the circumstances of the ore body not being deemed to be viable for development. That is the only circumstance under which this will take place.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, I'm interested to hear what the minister has said, but it puzzles me. The minister is saying that in the case there was an uneconomic mine, he might deny surface rights, if I understood him rightly, but in the case where the mine was uneconomic, surface rights would not be requested in the first place. I would ask him how he squares that with the words of the section. It just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't cover the mandate which was given by this section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, this wouldn't apply to the entire mineral claim. It would only apply to the portion which isn't being used for the extraction of ore.

Mr. Gibson : But, Mr. Chairman, the portion which is to be used for the extraction of ore is the only surface right that is being sought. This is like saying: "I'm going to deny you oxygen. I'm not going to deny you all the oxygen in the world, just in the room that you are in." It has the same effect on the person who would seek to produce a certain mineral claim. I can't do any more than make this representation, but I say again: without some kind of a compensation clause in there I have to register my strong opposition to this section.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 5073 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

section 22 as amended.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, this is the clause of this bill that terminates the iniquitous rental provision that used to obtain on mineral claims in this province, as introduced by the previous government, and that led to the lapsing of, I think, thousands of claims, the minister says. This was a result of rental provisions being put without notice on claims that had been held in good faith for many years, their work requirements done in advance for many years and, following the law and the custom of this province since Confederation, remained in good standing as long as those work requirements continued.

That rental provision came in and notices were not sent to the holders of such claims. They were supposed to read the newspapers, I suppose, or gather the information out of the air, which is rather difficult for a prospector who happens to be out in the bush at that particular time. As the minister said, through lack of payment of this rental fee, with no notification, thousands of claims lapsed. It was bad. It is being redressed here, and that is good.

Here is what I want to know. There is a law case that was taken in respect of...

Hon. Mr. Chabot : It is under appeal right now.

Mr. Gibson : ... the ability of the government to declare such claims forfeited. The person bringing in the case won it. The courts, in their wisdom and in their justice, I would say, said that the actions of the former government in that regard had gone beyond the principles of natural justice and a property right had been taken away without notification.

Then, Mr. Chairman, do you know what happened? The minister appealed that case forthwith, without reason, without compassion, without understanding of the inequity that he was endeavouring to perpetuate. That is completely at odds with what he is doing in this section. In this

section he is removing this iniquitous requirement, and in the court case, had he not appealed it, he had the machinery to say it never existed. The injustices that the minister spoke of himself in second reading of this bill apply to thousands of small prospectors in this province. Had that court case simply been left as it was, won by the appellant in the initial instance, those injustices would have been wiped out, the claims would have been returned to good standing, and the problem wouldn't exist.

Mr. Chairman, what has been done by the minister is that he has, in effect,

said: "Well, I don't know if the NDP was wrong or not, but I'm

going to get every pound of flesh I can out of the fact that they were wrong

during that period. Just because a small miner won one case in court, no siree,

that's not good enough for me. We're going to carry him through all

the courts of the land, with the cost of the highest priced lawyers in the land,

and we're going to beat him down on this one, even though we think the law's

so bad that we are repealing it in this bill." I want to know from the

minister how he can possibly justify that kind of action.

He is trying to uphold something that he himself admits is wrong, trying to uphold something that he himself admits has done a serious injustice to hundreds of prospectors and small claimholders around this province, Then at the same time, he's turning around and taking an appeal – an appeal which he did not have to take – which hits that same small miner over the head and tries to give him the shaft. I want to ask the minister how he justifies that in terms of this section, which repeals that iniquitous rental claim.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I opposed the principle of the imposition of a rental fee when it was introduced. This

section removes it. There have been many unfortunate situations in British Columbia where many of the small prospectors lost their mineral claims because of it.

We are faced with a very unfortunate and very grave situation dealing with titles in the province of British Columbia, I'm not about to debate the pros and cons of the appeal that I've suggested be under-taken against the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Morris case.

I would be glad to discuss at a later date the reasons why I decided there should be an appeal in relationship to the decision of the Supreme Court in this instance, but I don't think it would be proper for me to debate at this time the reasons why I felt it necessary for the matter to go to the appeal court of British Columbia. I think this is an inopportune time, in view of the fact there is this appeal pending. I would like to explain my reasons, but I don't think it would be proper to do so.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to the minister and suggest to him a mechanism by which it certainly would be proper for him to vent his

[ Page 5074 ]

views on this issue. I'm not asking him to discuss the Morris case, which, as he says, is under appeal. I will ask him to discuss any one of the other thousands of cases that the minister referred to in his debate on second reading, and describe to us why he would wish to put those claims in jeopardy by his policy – not that of the Morris case, but his general policy of appealing the issue.

Why would he wish to put those claims in jeopardy, when by simply leaving the matters lie, he would have been able to restore those claims to their rightful holders as a result of that court decision and because of the inequitous legislation? He could have found some way of compensation for those persons why may have been granted overlapping claims in the time that elapsed in the meantime. He would have an equally good political case against the former government, if that's his object, and justice would have been done to the original holders of these claims. That's what puzzles me very much.

I'm not asking the minister to comment on the Morris case, I'm asking him to comment on the general situation.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : If I discuss any other hypothetical situation, it amounts to the discussion of the Morris case. There is a much broader principle involved here than the one case. I feel there's a genuine need for the well-being of the mining industry for this case to be appealed.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

section 25.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix, )

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved,

section 26.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

section 29.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 42 inclusive approved.

section 43.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 5075 ]

Section 43 as amended approved.

section 44.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 44 as amended approved.

section 45.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 45 as amended.

Mr. Gibson : I have a question on

section 45 (S) .

Section 45 (5) states: "Sections 2 (l) , 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24 (l) , 25 to 29, 31, 32, 37, 38 (2) , 39, 41, 43, 44, 48 to 52, 54, 57 to 60, 62 and 65 apply to a 2 post claim.” What I want to know is: does that mean the other sections do not apply to a 2 post claim, or does that mean that the sections specified in 45 (5) do not apply to claims other than 2 post claims?

Mr. Cocke : You're being frivolous.

Mr. Gibson : I'm not, I'm being very serious. I was being frivolous in my

preamble.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : It's very simple. It just signifies that in all these sections 2 post claims are mentioned. It consolidates them.

Mr. Gibson : I would ask the minister that if 2 post claims are mentioned in all these sections, why was it considered necessary to mention them again in this section?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : This is a catch-all section; it catches them all. (Laughter.) It indicates that under the 2 post staking system, those sections apply.

Mr. Gibson : Well, Mr. Chairman, if these sections apply, I take it the

interpretation as to non-application means that other sections of the Act do not apply. Is that a correct

interpretation – that other sections of the Act do not apply to 2 post claims?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : This suggests that these sections only deal with 2 post claim-staking systems unless the 2 post staking system is expressly mentioned in another

section separately. In other words, where there is no reference to it, it's here in the catch-all section.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 to 57 inclusive approved.

section 58.

Mr. Lea : Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if there is any appeal from the gold commissioner's decision on that? Can it be a shorter period? The gold commissioner is not that high in the ranks of the department. It seems to me that if there is dissatisfaction for a reason, then there should be some appeal to someone else in the department.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : The chief gold commissioner has the authority to lessen the time gap, but it's in there specifically to protect the interests of the settlement of an estate.

Mr. Lea : But the chief gold commissioner has it within his power to make it a shorter period of time if necessary?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Yes.

Mr. Lea : Okay.

Sections 58 and 59 approved.

section 60.

Mr. R.E. Skelly (Alberni) : I just wanted to congratulate the minister, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this

section in. It has been the subject of some abuse in the riding of Alberni where mineral claims on

[ Page 5076 ]

waterfront have been transferred from one party to another as if they were waterfront recreational properties. I would just like to read an ad in the Alberni Valley Times:

"Vancouver Island property, 40 acre mineral claim with over 1,500 feet of waterfront, includes two beautiful bays, good mineral showings timber" – this one is particularly obvious – "good location for summer home and great fishing. Strawberry Point, Kildonan area, only $24,900."

That's pretty good for waterfront in the Alberni riding. "Phone Thursday evenings . . ." It may be too late for this one. "Seven to nine p.m. 112-987-4289."

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Sit down. We'll stop it. We'll get royal assent to stop it.

Mr. Skelly : Okay, but I would just like to congratulate the minister for bringing this

section in. I'm not sure that he can enforce it. Under the provisions of this

section all he can do is prevent the abuse of advertising like this for mineral claims. I hope that he will enforce it strictly.

Sections 60 to 62 approved.

section 63.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

section 64.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 64 as amended approved.

section 65.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 65 as amended approved.

Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved.

section 69.

Mr. Gibson : I just want to bring to the minister's attention some words here which could potentially cause problems, and learn from him how he plans to administer it. I'm speaking particularly of 5 (b) , that the plan of the mining system shall be designed so as to make it as practicable as possible in the future to mine zones affected by the plan.

This is an enormous potential power for the minister to interfere into mining schemes, rendering that which may be economic uneconomic, and putting on heavy requirements in one way or another. I appreciate the need for a general oversight by the Mines department to guard against such things as high-grading of an unnecessary nature, for example. I would ask the minister if he could give us some thoughts as to how he would plan to administer this

section in a practical way. Who would be the officials of his department who would examine these various plans, and under what criteria would they work?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : That would be administered , under the mining inspection branch of the division and it would be done through the mining inspectors who are located in various regions throughout the province.

Mr. Gibson : I appreciate knowing who would do it. Could I ask though what criteria would be invoked?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : It would vary from mineral deposit to mineral deposit.

Section 69 approved.

Sections 70 to 73 inclusive approved.

section 74.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that would allow rental fees, those iniquitous rental fees which we were discussing earlier on, to be rebated in certain cases. I would ask the minister how many claims, he thinks, and how many dollars might be affected by this provision.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, it's impossible to determine that question at this time.

Mr. Gibson : Well, that is "blank cheque"

[ Page 5077 ]

legislation, Could the minister give us an estimate of how many of the claims that were in good standing before the rental provision came in were declared forfeit and subsequently restaked? Could the minister tell us that?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : We don't have that information and it would be virtually impossible to secure it. Last year there were about 28,500 mineral claims staked in the province. It would be a major undertaking to identify the matters that you have brought to my attention.

Sections 74 and 75 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 73, Mineral Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker : When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker : The question will be that we report next sitting.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Yes, the next sitting of the House after today, due to the lack of co-operation by the official opposition.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker : Hon. members, before we proceed to the next bill, I would have to advise the House that in passing Bill 32, the Statistics Act, I did not declare it

an Act of the House which is required and I intend to do so at this time. Then, it is

an Act –Statistics Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Committee on Bill 63.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Big 63; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 8 as amended.

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, this section, as I read it, stops the ombudsman from investigating certain matters in which a right of appeal to a court or tribunal may apply.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Until it has transpired.

Mr. Gibson : Until that appeal has transpired.

There will be cases where the persons concerned simply will be unable to afford the legal or other costs associated with that kind of appeal. It may not happen in a large number of cases but, as the Attorney-General knows, this is something that the Legal Services Commission has been very concerned about – delivery of various legal aid services.

I wonder if the Attorney-General considered any ways or means whereby the office of the ombudsman might be permitted to intervene in those cases, even though there might lie a theoretical right of appeal but not a practical right because of financial reasons.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : It's a very good point that the member has made, and was not one that escaped our attention during the drafting of the bill or in the policy decisions that led to its formulation. But we did not wish it to have a duplicating function. When an avenue for appeal existed, Mr. Member, it was felt advisable in the interests of the certainty, both of the law and for the appellant, that first of all the right of appeal should be either exercised or not exercised.

And following the transpiration of that period, it is still open to the applicant, if the applicant so chooses, to apply to the ombudsman insofar as it deals with the acts of administrative authority because, as you know, the ombudsman does not have the power to reverse or vary a decision. His responsibility is to recommend changes in procedure.

So we can have a situation on a statement of fact that the appellant might feel honestly and correctly aggrieved and may appeal or may not appeal. But providing the procedures have been correctly followed, that appellant does not have a right of access per se to the ombudsman. Right of access, fine and dandy, but it would be dealt with summarily by

[ Page 5078 ]

the ombudsman. The

section that we have incorporated in our bill here is consistent with the bulk of the sections in the country.

Sections 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

Mr. Macdonald : I have a question for the Attorney-General. Subsection (2) says that a person who is bound by an enactment to maintain confidentiality needn't disclose the matter to the ombudsman. Now I think that surely goes too far, because there are all kinds of statutes that contain these confidentiality provisions. I'm not referring to the civil service oath which is exempted from this section, but ICBC, for example, has a

section saying that employees shall not reveal a file. Does that mean the ombudsman cannot look at that file?

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Mr. Member, I was just rising at the same time you were because I'm proposing an amendment to this particular section. I'm proposing to add, hon. member, and do so move, an amendment to

section 15 by adding the following as subsection (4) , and I shall read it slowly so we'll get it onto the record and you may consider it. I think it will cover your concerns. I thank the Clerk for passing a copy to you.

"Subject to

section 14, after receiving a complainant's consent in writing, the ombudsman may require a person described in subsection (2) , " which is the one you're referring to, "and that person shall supply information, answer any question or produce any document or thing required by the ombudsman that relates only to the complainant."

So this would give the complainant the right to make that particular application to the ombudsman insofar as it related to a case of that complainant.

It's not a "busybody" section; it's a

section that could relate to an aggrieved complainant and the aggrieved complainant will now have an additional access to the ombudsman under the Act and under this section.

Before sitting down, I would just like to re-express to the hon. members that this statute that we have or will have in British Columbia by the time it passes into third reading and becomes law, will be exemplary insofar as the country is concerned, and without doubt has the broadest powers of reference to an ombudsman of any similar legislation in Canada.

So I would like to, if I could – pardon the indulgence – thank members

of the staff, interested people who have worked for and on the Black and Weiler

report, and members of the opposition as well, who worked long and hard on this

topic. I would say that in British Columbia we have come up with the best bill

in the country.

Mr. Macdonald : Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I am very glad this particular blockage is being removed from the Act. I think the words accomplish that. I think it's very important that the Legislature should watch this very carefully; that the ombudsman, to be effective, must be able to divulge and disclose and expose, just as a judge does when he hears a court case. He reveals the evidence and gives his reasons and conclusions.

The drafting of this Act still gives me concern in that respect, but I see this is as an important step forward, and this was a

section that really worried me above all in terms of secrecy. It's essential that this ombudsman not be impeded in his investigation and that he be able to reveal to the public the grievance or the wrong, and that includes the evidence, because that's the best protection. It's much better than any decision, finding, exposure or publicity about the workings of government. That's the way to help aggrieved persons and that's the best way to help society generally. So I strongly support and endorse this amendment. I'm glad the Attorney-General brought it in.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Just one point in response to the hon. member. I would like to sum up nine essential points here that we have within the statute. The British Columbia ombudsman: (1) will be able to investigate; (2) will be able to report; (3) can complain; (4) can comment publicly; (5) can publicize; (6) can bring his findings to the attention of the authority concerned; (7) can bring his findings to the attention of the person who is aggrieved; (8) can bring his findings to the attention of cabinet; (9) can bring his findings to the attention of the Legislature.

He may also be directed on behalf of the Legislature to look into a specific topic, as it so requests, and he has the responsibility to file an annual report.

It really couldn't be any more open than that. It's the most open bill of its kind in the country.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 34 inclusive approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment, standing in my name, to the schedule. It's a better definition of the

schedule than was first contained, but it's the same definition. It's just improved legalese. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 5079 ]

Schedule as amended approved.

Title approved.

An Hon. Member : It's not "ombudsperson"?

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Ombudsman. But that doesn't necessarily mean, sir, that it has to be a man; it can be a woman. Indeed it can.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Ombudsman Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Chairman : When shall the bill be, considered as reported?

Hon. Mr. Gardom : With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Gardom : With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 63, Ombudsman Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 84.

MINERAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

Mr. Lea : The official opposition made its feeling known on second reading of this bill, but

section 9, which is really the bill all wrapped into one, is the retroactive

section that we spoke against. I'd just like to point out to the committee that even though the minister may feel justified in what he's doing, there are a great many people in the province who do not. I would just like to mention one group, because I think it might have some influence with the minister and his colleagues. This is from the Vancouver Sun, August 26,1977.

It says: "The B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association has called upon the provincial government to withdraw its proposed Bill 84, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act." Then in a statement, Wednesday, the association said that it was very concerned about the legislation, which is directed at nullifying the lawsuit by mining companies that could force the government to rebate up to $39.6 million in mineral taxes collected in 1974,1975 and 1976.

In other words, there are a great many groups who are watching this legislation and this Legislature with a great deal of interest over this section. We are opposed to this section, and to the bill. We just want to point that out, and re-affirm with the government and the minister that a great many others in the province, are also opposed.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman,

section 9 deals with the clarification of the Act and the intent of the Act as it was deemed to indicate. It is parallel with the Logging Tax Act that was introduced by the socialist government, There was an office in British Columbia which was deemed to clarify the legislation, based on the challenge having taken place in the court. This

section does not deny access to the courts. It does not change the rules; it clarifies them. It does not impose any additional tax levies against anyone.

Mr. Gibson : This is one of the most disgraceful bills of this session, and the minister knows it. To hear him stand up and say that this bill, this retroactive taxation section, is a mere clarification of earlier legislation is a disgrace. To hear him justify what he is doing in this case by an action of the former government – a government that he opposed in all the things they stood for, and particularly this kind of retroactive legislation whenever they brought it in – makes a mockery out of everything that minister has ever said to this Legislature. This is a denial of justice.

The minister may say that it is a clarification of an old law, but it is a retroactive denial of justice. It is moving the goalposts so that citizens in this province who had a legitimate claim and action against the Crown – with a reasonable opportunity of winning it, I believe, in the opinion of the minister's advisers – are being told that the ground rules are being changed so that they have no chance of winning it. If that is not a denial of access to the courts, I don’t know what is. It's moving the goalposts, as the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association said.

It is completely wrong, This kind of retroactive legislation, if allowed to go unchecked, says to every citizen in this province: "What's the use

[ Page 5080 ]

of trying to fight the government? Even if I'm right, I have a case, they were wrong and were caught, they'll just change the rules."

Mr. Chairman, that kind of thing very quickly emasculates our court system. I very much hope that some way will be found to take this dreadful bill itself before the courts, to find a denial of natural justice in this retroactive legislation. It may be that the courts will, in due course, find that the Legislature is supreme and can do any miserable, despicable thing it chooses to do, as it would do in

section 9 of this bill, if it follows the advice of the government over the objections of the opposition.

I hope that there is some possibility in our court system of exercising judicial review of this section, just as the courts found a way of reviewing the action of a government that minister used to belong to -though I don't think he was in the cabinet at that time – in attempting to deny access to the courts in terms of the takeover of the British Columbia Electric.

This is the same kind of thing. It is a deliberate end run around the courts and it is therefore an undermining of the courts. I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a complete disgrace and the minister can in no way defend it by calling it clarification. The fact of the matter is that a taxpayer's rights to appeal to the court are being infringed retroactively. Every member of this Legislature should stand in his place against that kind of tyrannical legislation on the part of the executive branch.

Mr. Macdonald : Mr. Chairman, this little retroactive

section moves me to philosophize a little bit because the minister has used his feather duster and tidied up this Act far more than "clarification."

I agree with what's just been said by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . But the interesting thing is the minister has admitted that the legislation passed by what he calls the socialist government, the NDP, was good legislation, and so it was. The Mineral Land Tax Act that we passed raised revenue without hurting employment in the producing mines in this province at all. It raised $39 million in public revenue from 1974 to 1976 and was good legislation.

Now this Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, when he comes along and tidies up that legislation, has admitted it.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Nonsense!

Mr. Macdonald : Now be a man: stand up and say it was good legislation. Tell us that we're just a government in exile. Tell us we're just on leave of absence, that the province needs more of this.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : That was bad legislation.

Mr. Macdonald : And yet you come in with an order-in-council after using your feather duster on this bill and ' say: "It's a very bad bill, but I'm going to fix it up and make it look very good." And after you've received this public revenue – $39 million which the public never received before in the history of this province – you come along and you pass an order-in-council and you say: "But now it's all over." You know, we said in '74, '75 and '76: give some return to the people of the province for their resources – $39 million. In '77, '78, '79 – nothing.

Oh, what a giveaway! On the one hand you admit we had good legislation by bringing in this amendment but, on the other hand, dictated to by his bosses in the cabinet, the Minister of Mines gives it all away again and British Columbia reverts to its long sleep as one of the banana republics of the world.

I think the admission and the giving away of this public revenue for the future is the worst feature I see in this bill, apart from the court aspects. There should be a mineral land tax in this province. It worked, and it should work in the future, and the public is entitled to some revenue from mineral lands that are let out by public licence, whether they lie idle or are brought into production. We're not getting that revenue under this government, because they want to give it away. That's the tragedy.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay) : Mr. Chairman, I recognize the point the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) is making, but I happen to think that even more important than the money is the insult to the accepted rule of law.

An Hon. Member : Hear, hear!

Mr. Wallace : When legislation requires clarification, to quote the minister, the persons who are affected by that legislation should indeed have their day in court. There is no question that the minister is simply indulging in semantics when he says that this bill is to clarify the intent of the legislation.

Retroactive legislation, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has pointed out, is bad legislation, no matter what particular issue is being dealt with, and most particularly taxation. As I pointed out in second reading, how would the taxpayers of Canada feel if the federal government revised its Income Tax Act four years and two months retroactively and told half the people in Canada that the refunds that they had been paid in the last four years were no longer there and that they had to pay the refunds back to the government? Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, how that kind of retroactive federal legislation would have the country absolutely on its ear?

Mr. Gibson : Right on! The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources would be the first to

[ Page 5081 ]

complain about it.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : The NDP brought in retroactive taxation on income tax.

Mr. Wallace : It is reprehensible that any government, in regard to taxation legislation in particular, should try to implement amendments that go back four years and two months. It's simply unjust and unfair and it brings the whole question of legislation and the democratic rule of law into a state of complete distrust by the people of this province.

I know that the minister can smile because this doesn't really affect the little man; this doesn't affect the individual citizen. The citizens of this province think: "Well, sock it to the mining companies." There's no sympathy for the mining companies getting nailed by this kind of legislation and being told that they needn't bother going to court because the government has moved the goalposts.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : What made you think I was smiling?

Mr. Wallace : Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Yes, it's hard to tell your position; you shift from day to day.

Mr. Chairman : Order, please!

Mr. Wallace : There's no difficulty in understanding my position on this bill unless you've been sitting with your ears closed and your mind so adamant that you won't listen to another point of view. You would have been one of the ones shouting the loudest if you were still on this side of the House with this kind of legislation. Don't give us this argument that because the NDP did it it's all right for you to do it. You were elected to do better things than the NDP, not just emulate them.

That's the most ridiculous defence I've ever heard in this House, Whenever you get into a situation that's hard to defend, you turn around and say that these guys did it so it's all Tight for you to do it. What a ridiculous defence!

Hon. Mr. Chabot : What was your position on the Logging Tax Act, eh? What was your position?

Mr. Chairman : Order, please. Kindly address the Chair.

Mr. Wallace : We know what yours was.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : You're pretty shifty.

Mr. Wallace : There was no recorded vote on the Logging Tax Act. You look up the Journals of the House.

Mr. Chairman : Order, please. Would the Minister of Mines and the member for Oak Bay please address the Chair?

Mr. Wallace : Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines is a little edgy because he's having a terrible time trying to defend this

section of this bill, which is completely unjustifiable. Even when he makes comparisons with the Logging Tax Act issue, we have to remember that it was after a court case had determined there was need for clarification- You're not even giving the mining companies the chance to go to court in the first place.

These are the freedom fighters. These are the politicians who said they were going to save British Columbia because it was descending into slavery at the hands of the NDP socialists. Now we have them bringing in this kind of bill that moves the goalposts four years and two months after the original application of the law. Well, I think it's despicable. There are few bills that have come before this House that have this measure of injustice in them.

There may be political differences which we have in this House between both sides of the House, but on an issue of this importance it should far rise above anything in the nature of just a partisan argument as to whether the tax was right or wrong, or whether the taxation policies on mineral land, or lumber, Or any other natural resource, were right or wrong. It is just beside the point of this debate. The essence of this debate is that this is an affront to the accepted, traditional, well-established rule of law.

If you, or anyone, Mr. Chairman, expect citizens to respect law and the laws written by politicians when they know that four years from now they could make any one of us a criminal by changing the law, then I think the law itself just falls into complete and utter disrespect.

One of the issues that's very prominent in this land of ours today is the rule of law and respect for law, We're going around as politicians telling juveniles and others to obey the law, but when we don't like the law we just change it. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.

I just say, Mr. Chairman, that I can't oppose this kind of legislation in anything but the strongest terms, not because it's mining legislation, or because it's taxation legislation, or whatever the specific kind of issue is, but because it is the overriding, general principle that we need, more than ever before, public respect for legislation and the way the legislation is written and adhered to. Certainly politicians and governments in power will gain nothing but ongoing disrespect when they find that a law they don't like can be changed four years and two months after it

[ Page 5082 ]

was first written.

I still feel that this situation could be at least alleviated to some degree if the government would just give some commitment that it is not an ongoing policy of this government that it will change laws four years and two months after they have been written just because it finds it is not suitable and acceptable to the government of the day. Anybody who cares to read the authorities – the people who have professional expertise in the whole area of law and the application of the rule of the law – will tell you, as the bar association has done, that as a fundamental principle retroactive legislation is bad legislation.

It amounts to changing the score of the game simply by moving the goalposts and saying the goals were never scored in the first place. I think that that cannot be exaggerated in the kind of society in which we are living today where time and time again, from all directions, we are hearing that there must be respect for the law. How can there be when those who sit in chambers such as this just simply change the law to suit their own purpose?

Mr. Gibson : Mr. Chairman, the position of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association on this bill has been mentioned. Sitting behind the minister are two of his colleagues, distinguished members of the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association. How embarrassed they must be by this bill. How ashamed they must be of this

section which makes it retroactive. I see the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) just coming into the House. I can well remember, in the days when he was in opposition, how retroactive legislation of any kind was an anathema to him. Today he nods to the Speaker and leaves the House when the subject is under discussion.

The hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) sit mute, embarrassed, ashamed by this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. member, we are on

section 9. 1 would ask that you get back to

section 9. The subject which we are now broaching is not really debatable under

section 9.

Mr. Gibson : We're speaking of

section 9 and the bar association, which represents 3,500 lawyers. I'm quoting the newspaper here: "It criticized the legislation, saying that it interfered with matters already before the courts." It unquestionably does exactly that. Harvey Parliament, who is the president of the Mining Association, had this to say in part the other day:

"We sincerely believe this matter warrants a second look

by our Mines minister. Confidence in the mining industry has been shattered

in recent years by government legislation, particularly the mineral royalties

legislation, which is in issue in this case. The action taken by the government

yesterday will seriously disturb investor confidence, which is so necessary

in this province to provide mining development and jobs."

Here is this minister, who has always protested and proclaimed his wish to see more jobs in British Columbia, putting himself in a position where he is seriously undermining investor confidence in a day when our mining industry is already having quite enough trouble with the price of copper low and going lower. With soft orders for coal and with a general high cost structure in the province and difficulties all over the place, this minister comes along with something so fundamentally undermining of investor confidence as this.

Mr. Chairman, I remember that that minister used to vigorously criticize the former government for its [illegible] policy. Well, I want to tell him that he is worse than the former government in his actions against employment in the mineral industry in British Columbia in two ways. First of all, the previous government never gave the mining industry a financial knock over the head like this in any one single move that they made.

Secondly, the moves that they did make against the mining industry, however stupid they were, they at least had the grace to do in accordance with the principles of law and natural justice and passage of things in this Legislature. That's not what this government is proposing to do here in making a mockery of the right of access to the court system by this retroactive legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that it's a question of principle. If it's just the money you want, for God's sake, have the courage to go ahead and pass a tax bill to get the money. But please, please, please retain your principles. If the government pushes ahead with this

section and this retroactive legislation, they will be betraying their principles and they will be betraying all of the things that they stood up before the people of British Columbia and promised before the election in December, 1975. It's a disgrace. It's too bad, perhaps, that the vote can't be made retroactive to the day when the people of British Columbia have a chance to see some of the actions like this that they have brought about.

Mr. Chairman : Shall

section 9 pass?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman : Division is called.

Interjections.

[ Page

5083 ]

Mr. Chairman : The doors were closed after the bell was rung. Please be seated. There is no point of order during the taking of a division.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. members, in the view of the Chair, the Premier was in the House at the time that the bell was rung. But if the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) challenges that, he should state so at this time.

Mr. Lauk : The bell rang and then the Premier clearly entered the chamber. Now if he says that that is not true, I will withdraw that charge.

Hon. Mr. Bennett : I'm not going to make any issue of it at all. I came in as the guard let me in. I'm quite prepared to go out for the vote if the member for Vancouver Centre doesn't want me to vote. The guard at the door was just about to close the door as I came in, and he admitted me to the chamber. Mr. Chairman, it is not a close vote. If the member for Vancouver Centre doesn't want me to vote, I'd be quite willing to withdraw from the chamber. But to my way of thinking, the door was not closed.

Mr. Lauk : I raised the point of order, Mr. Chairman, not because I'm against the Premier's vote or any other member's vote. What I am saying is that I was a bit surprised the other day when members of the opposite side asked for the exclusion of the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

Mr. Nicolson : He came through the door. He didn't come in out of the gallery.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. member, in that occurrence the Speaker observed the member for Vancouver-Burrard coming into the chamber. But the Chairman hasn't got that....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman : Well, hon. member, that's the opinion of the Chair.

Hon. P.L. McGeer (Minister of Education) : Mr. Chairman, I would Eke to draw your attention to standing order 16, which requires that every member present in the House be recorded for a division. That includes the Premier.

Mr. Chairman : Your point is well taken.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS – 38

Waterland

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

NAYS – 15

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

Lauk

Nicolson

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

King

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 84, Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act 1977, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Chabot : Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 84, Mineral Land Tax Act, 1977, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 27

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Lloyd

Kerster

Kempf

Kahl

Haddad

Vander Zalm

Nielsen

Bawlf

Mair

Williams

McClelland

Davis

Waterland

Rogers

Mussallem

Loewen

Veitch

[ Page 5084 ]

NAYS – 16

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

Skelly

Sanford

Levi

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom : Committee on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 1.

Mr. Barnes : Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister would give us some explanation for the exclusion of the tenant – I imagine that was in the other Act – and indicate his explanation for some of his statements last night. He left the House with the impression in debate that tenants were represented by a Communist-inspired organization and, therefore, things that they had to say were of no relevance. That is one of the most important parts of the Act and it seems to be excluded. There's no definition in this

section for tenant. There is for tenancy agreement.

But if the minister is thinking of tenants in terms of being to use his expression, "under the leadership of a Communist. . . ." "Self-avowed Communist, " I believe was the term, speaking of Mr. Bruce Yorke. I tried to get his attention and suggest that there were other tenants as well, and certainly he is not a tenant but a spokesman for an organization. Perhaps he should explain what avenues are available to those people who may feel that regardless of their political affiliation, they have something to offer in the way of improving the legislation.

Right from the beginning, the attitude is that persons of different political persuasions have no right to input. You had an opportunity to speak and I hope you do so, because the impression is clear in my mind that all tenants are under Mr. Bruce Yorke and he is a Communist. Therefore we know what their views are, and that's why we didn't bother with the tenants in getting input for the formulation of this new bill.

The question begs immediate reply, I feel, because before we can proceed, there should be some explanation as to why the minister has gone along with a series of moves that seemed to be predetermined. He has indicated to this House one which was the result of a special committee of the cabinet and had input from the B.C. Rental Housing Council, I think it's called, who he said were quite upset over the bill and the changes. I don't recall them coming to the opposition for any explanation of their problems.

Perhaps they felt they would go to their friends who would put on the impression that they were dissatisfied. I would like him to explain how he feels this will be, to use his words, a more balanced piece of legislation, a more equitable vehicle whereby landlords and tenants can settle their differences.

Hon. Mr. Mair : That's principle, Mr. Chairman. I have already gone through that.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. member, I do believe you are discussing principle. We're on

section 1.

Mr. Barnes : That's true but the

definitions that I am interested in are the ones that are not here. The definition of tenant was excluded. I would like the minister to clarify what a tenant is in his mind and what rights tenants will have. We have defined service of facilities, and we've talked about a tenancy agreement and regulations respecting tenancy premises. I feel that all these things are very mechanical but the philosophical intent of the bill is not clear in terms of the civil rights of tenants. That is the question I have on this section. Before we proceed, I would like to know why the minister has excluded a definition of tenant.

He has left us with the impression that they are a hostile bunch of people out there without proper representation. If they were liberals or gave the impression that they were more aligned with your political persuasions, you might be more willing to listen. The impression that I have right now is that the tenants have no voice. If they do have a voice, I would like the minister to explain what that voice and input has been.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I'd like to make clear to the member what I said last night, if he hasn't looked at the Blues.

Mr. Barnes : I did.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I think that the tenants in this province have every right to be heard and have, indeed, been heard. What I do think is that Mr. Bruce Yorke is a bad leader of the tenants. I say so for this reason: he is obviously using the tenants' organization and the tenants that he represents for his own political platform, Now I don't make that statement about the people with whom he associates, incidentally, and I would particularly like to refer to Mrs. De Weiss. I rather gather that if she and I were to discuss politics we would also be on the opposite sides of the fence, but Mrs. De Weiss has made a lot

[ Page

5085 ]

of very useful and helpful statements to us and has given us a lot of input, albeit critical. She has been very fair and I think that if you were to talk to her privately, she would agree that she has indeed been afforded every opportunity to be heard on behalf of the people she represents, and tenants in general.

But if you are going to ask me whether or not I think Mr. Bruce Yorke is a good representative of the tenants, I'm going to tell you, unequivocally, no. The man has on two occasions used the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Residential Tenant Act for his own purposes. He had a meeting here last June and asked me to hoist the bill then. I told him, Mr. Member, that it was not the intention of the government to hoist the bill in June, but if he wanted to have more input, be was welcome to do so and that my officials and staff would meet with him at any reasonable time.

They have held themselves ready to do that and have indeed met with him, but he doesn't want to bring in input to this bill, Mr. Member, he wants to play politics with it. That's not true of many of the people who work with him, I quite agree, I think that they have been very helpful to us. They don't agree necessarily with what we're doing nor, indeed, I can assure you, do the landlords. They very much disagree. As a matter of fact, they are trying to meet with me right now to get me to hoist the bill the same way Mr. Yorke wants me to.

I want to make it perfectly clear, once and for all, that I think that the tenants are entitled to every consideration. I think that they have received every consideration from my ministry, but I don't think that they are well led by Mr. Yorke. As a matter of fact, they are very badly led by him.

One thing – I forget to answer your question about tenants. So far as my research can determine, Mr. Member, there has been no definition, oddly enough, of the word "tenant", in either the Act previous to this one or, I believe, in the one previous to that – the one that was repealed by the Act that you brought in. I guess the answer is that we have got along for all this time without defining what a tenant is, and I guess we have no trouble figuring out who he or she is.

Mr. Barnes : Just as briefly as possible, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the point and I want to thank the minister for his candid response, I'm not here to defend any leader and I can certainly understand the politics involved on both sides. I can understand the politics that were involved when the minister and the Premier made the announcement in the first place about lowering the maximum increase from 10.6 to 7 per cent. It was politics, and as we know, we are still battling with that problem.

What I wanted to clarify, just for the record, was the comment made by the minister last evening, when he took the time to indicate the person's politics. I know that the person may or may not be playing politics, but the minister wants to appear impartial and that he, is available to the public at large. He is a servant of the people and I think it is quite dangerous for him to specify the politics of that particular person, who has rights just as well as anyone else, regardless of whether I would agree or disagree, I certainly think the minister has the right to disagree with that particular person.

It is a dangerous thing though, I think, when we have to think, in terms of delegations coming to the Legislature or wherever we meet with them, that they are of a particular political persuasion. I think this has been one of the things that has been consistent, although not said, in other acts of this government. I merely wanted, Mr. Chairman, to indicate for the record my concern about that question.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I don't want to belabour the point either, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. member, it would be out of Order if you did.

Hon. Mr. Mair : Of course it would. I just want to make this comment to the second member for Vancouver Centre. Mr. Member, I have known you for some time, outside of this House as well as in, and I think that you are a fair-minded man. I can assure you that if you had been with me yesterday, when I flew to Vancouver for the one and only purpose of meeting with Mr. Yorke and the people with him, you would have agreed that there was no way that I had any chance to got any input from Mr. Yorke on that occasion, I was set up, plain and simply, and any fair-minded person would say the same thing.

As a matter of fact, the public servants who were with me would, I'm sure, if you asked them, say the same thing. So I don't feel badly in standing in this House and saying that Mr. Yorke does not properly represent people who need and are entitled to good representation. So I offer no apology for the remarks I made.

Mr. Chairman : Now the Chair will not allow any further discussion on the principle of the bill.

Mr. Wallace : On

definitions, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make two points under the word "prescribed". It clearly means prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Since I mean to relate that to various sections later in committee debate, I just want to make it clear on the record the immense amount of discretion which the bill is providing under the definition "prescribed", particularly under

part 8 of the bill.

The second point – I would like to ask a question under the definition "service or facility." I won't

[ Page 5086 ]

recite all the items from I to 12, but I notice that utilities and related services are included under the definition. Later on in the bill, this Act is described as taking preference and force over other Acts. I'm wondering if the minister could comment briefly on the fact that in certain housing facilities for senior citizens, the utilities are regarded as part of the rent, in order to calculate whether it is more than 25 per cent of the person's income, But in certain other facilities, also subsidized by the government, the utilities are not included in the rent. I am having a fair bit of correspondence from senior citizens pointing out this discrimination.

The Baptist Church housing project on Foul Bay Road, for example, does not include utilities in the rent. With the B.C. Hydro rates going up and up and a service charge and so on, those senior citizens in that particular facility are very unhappy. If you take the church facility on North Park Street in downtown Victoria, the utilities, including hydro, are regarded as part of the rent. Now does this definition in this Act relate only to individuals who rent apart from a government-subsidized property?

In other words, is the legislation, governing senior citizens' residences, and the Acts governing the financing of these residences, quite separate and not influenced in any way by the provisions of this Act?

This definition makes it seem as though very clearly, no matter where you rent a property in British Columbia, the definition of "rent" would include the following services, and these services include utilities. One of the items that senior citizens are most sensitive to, of course, is the increasing cost of Hydro and telephone – well, perhaps not so much telephone, but certainly Hydro – which is not only increasing steadily, but also is subject to. social services tax and a service charge.

It makes quite a difference to those senior citizens who will not pay more than 25 per cent of their income for rent if, in fact, in calculating the rent, the utilities are included. There do appear to be differing standards, or different practices, depending on which particular senior citizen facility you live in. I wonder if the minister would care to clarify that.

Hon. Mr. Mair : First of all, dealing with the question of the prescribed definition, I quite agree that there are a number of areas in this Act where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe regulations, but I think I should say to the member that this is obviously a regulatory statute. It is one which must be flexible. I think the member would agree that of all statutes that we have governing the relations between people in this province that ought to be flexible, this is the one.

If you can't meet situations as they come along and respond to them and react quickly, then, of course, you're going to have confrontation situations which are going to get out of hand – the very situations that this Act is designed to overcome.

Insofar as the "service" or "facility" definition is concerned, Mr. Member, in talking to the senior staff members with me I'm advised that the problem is that, in many cases, other Acts that govern the payment of rent determine whether or not utilities or related services do or do not form part of that rent. I know that the hon. member opposite has had discussions with my staff in this regard. I want to assure the hon. member that we do know there is, from time to time, a problem.

We would like to co-operate with him, and with anybody else who can assist us, in resolving some of these difficulties that do result from a multitude of government intrusions, I suppose, for want of a better word.

I think the member's point is well taken and I hope that answer is satisfactory.

Ms. Brown : Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the minister this definition of the word "tenant." I think it's important that we do have a definition of the word "tenant" for two reasons. One has to do with the people who live in subsidized housing. Now it has been brought to our attention by the Vancouver & District Public Housing Tenants' Association that suddenly, when the children in the family reach a certain age and become employed, 25 per cent of their income has to go towards the rent.

In other words, when does a person become a tenant? Do you become a tenant when you're age 18, age 19, or when you find a job? Should a child who has a paper route and is bringing in a certain amount of money per month – $50 or $60, or whatever –suddenly be designated a tenant and 25 per cent of that child's income go towards the rent? I realize that people in subsidized housing have a rent which is prorated in terms of the income and one thing and another.

I think this is just one example of why it's so important to know when a person becomes a tenant. Three children and a parent, or two parents living in a house or in an apartment, renting for a certain sum of money, they're always there. Suddenly one of the children starts working and that child's income is then taken into account. Suddenly that person becomes a tenant. Nothing else has changed about them.

The fact that there has never been a definition of the word "tenant" is one of the reasons why it has been so difficult to file complaints under the Human Rights Act, and various other kinds of jurisdictions, to deal with discrimination in terms of tenants. We don't know what a "tenant" is, quite frankly.

The other group of people whom I want to talk about are people with small children. Now there still is nowhere in this piece of legislation where it is clearly stated that a landlord cannot refuse to rent

[ Page 5087 ]

accommodation to a person simply because that person has children. Now....

Mr. Chairman : With great respect, hon. minister, you're not on this section.

Ms. Brown : I'm not a minister, with great respect.

Mr. Chairman : Hon. member, you're not on this section.

Ms. Brown : I am discussing the definition of the word "tenant, " okay? We must know when a person is a tenant. Is a tenant a person who suddenly, at a certain age, becomes a tenant, or is it when they get employment that they become a tenant?

How can people file for discrimination when they have been refused accommodation because they have small children unless they know what a "tenant" is? You know, who is a tenant? A tenant is a tenant is a tenant. It doesn't say anything, I think the fact that we've never had a definition for the word "tenant" is bad. This minister now has an opportunity to undo this wrong. Clearly these are two groups who want to be able to fight discrimination against them based on the fact of their being a tenant.

I think the minister should seriously take into consideration drafting the definition of a tenant, even before saying what a tenancy agreement is, and then saying what things can be done to a tenant and what things cannot be done to a tenant. But just using the word doesn't really mean anything to us. We must have a definition for it.

Hon. Mr. Mair : Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer to the want of a definition of "ten, " the Act is that obviously, for as many years as there has been a Landlord and Tenant Act or a similar Act, we have used and preferred the common-law definition of tenant and the flexibility that that allows anyone in making such a determination.

But I must say that in listening to the members opposite it has caused me enough concern that I will undertake to the House to look into the situation and see whether or not, in the opinion of my senior staff, it would be wise under all of the circumstances to create or to define "tenant."

I can say this: I think it may pose as many problems as it solves. We may be better off to allow flexibility in determination of this relationship rather than to box it in. But this is something that, as I say, I will take to my senior staff. I think it's a reasonable concern, and I'll look into it.

Ms. Brown : I would just like to tell the minister that I certainly appreciate

that. I wonder if, at the same time, he would deal with the word "landlord,

" specifically in terms of "landlord" as it applies to an organization,

even a non-profit organization, or government.

The definition should be expanded to include the government of British Columbia, for example. Then dealing specifically with non-profit organizations, because they're exempt and because they're not included in this definition of landlords.... The kinds of things that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned earlier, and the people who live in the Richmond Lions housing, for example, haven't got the kinds of protections that we need under the Act. So maybe you could reconsider that too.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I am advised, and it occurs to me, that the definition says, "landlord includes . . ." which does not mean that it excludes other common-law landlord relationships. My staff advises me that whether it's the government or a charitable institution or anybody else who enters into a tenancy agreement, they become thereby a landlord, even though they are not specifically within the "landlord includes, " In other words, they are a common-law landlord and they are covered by the Act as such.

But you've raised a good point, again, Mr. Member, and I certainly will consult with my staff to see whether or not any amendments are necessary.

Once again, as I said with other statutes in this ministry, they must be flexible statutes. They must be ones that we look at from time to time and make sure we have a statute that is in keeping with the times and the situation that exists. So I will take that under advisement, Mr. Member, but I do believe there is a common-law landlord relationship.

Ms. Brown : Again, I'm not quite sure whether that was a term of endearment or what when he referred to me as "Mr. Member" on two separate occasions, but I accept it. It shows that you can't tell the difference, can you? I mean, we're all members in this House.

Hon. Mr. Mair : We are, indeed, but I certainly can tell the difference, Madam Member.

Mr. Wallace : It's not that late in second reading!

Hon. Mr. Mair : No! (Laughter.) God help us if it over gets that late!

Ms. Brown : I just want for the record to have the minister state that a group like the Lions, and I'm specifically concerned about Richmond Manor, is actually covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act in terms of the kinds of increases and jurisdictions and things outlined here.

[ Page 5088 ]

Hon. Mr. Mair : Madam Member, I don't want to deal specifically with a Lion's club at a particular place, because I don't know the circumstance., But the Lion's club, or any other charitable organization, can, and often does, and indeed is now, a landlord under many circumstances.

Mr. N. Levi (Vancouver-Burrard) : I thought the minister was going to go on to say: "Let's not deal with the Lion's club, let's just deal with the general category of non-profit operations." And there are many of them.

Maybe I should advise the minister that it has been the practice to exclude them. Now are they still excluded? Because I gather from what the minister has said and maybe he was just dealing with a kind of legalistic

interpretation of "landlord, " that they could be covered. I think it would be important to know whether, in fact, they are covered because at the moment they are not.

We have, I think, the best.... One of the examples is the residence for the blind which is constantly getting enormous increases, and they are not subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act. Given what the minister has said – I don't want him to get into hot water because he'll only have to get out of it again – but can he be more specific? These non-profit operations – and we're not referring to any specific one – are sending out increase notices on a fairly regular basis to people. People have had very dramatic increases, some of them as high as 30 and 40 per cent. At no time have they come under the umbrella of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I'm afraid that my confusion was generated by the fact that I thought we were dealing strictly with definition of "landlord." There's no question about it about these charitable organizations under another section, which I'm sure we'll come to, are exempt and have been exempt under the previous legislation. They are allowed, I understand, one increase per year, but they're not subject to the 10.6 per cent now and the 7 per cent to be. So I hope that answers that question.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

Mr. Wallace : I would just like some clarification, because I gather that

section 3 is an attempt to deal with the hotel-motel situation in Vancouver and elsewhere. I just want some clarification as to

section 3 (l) (d) , which reads:

". . premises that the rentalsman designates with respect to specified persons as residential premises where the rentalsman considers that the premises are occupied, or have been occupied for residential purposes by the same person on a continuous basis."

Now I can see the reasoning behind this, Mr. Chairman, but I'm just a little boggled at the bureaucracy that must be involved if each individual decision on designation has to be taken in relation to the person occupying the premises, which in these cases that we're talking about is one room. We're talking about, presumably, I don't know how many hundreds. The members for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown and Mr. Levi) can perhaps come in with the details on this, but I gather that there are many hundred such citizens living in such premises in Vancouver. ...

I've had some contact with the problem, and I'm told that intimidation is a fact of life. If they complain about attempts to increase their rent excessively, they're threatened by the landlord, We've seen interviews on television which show that these people have a tough time.

All I'm asking is that this

section 3 (l) (

d) be a practical, enforceable and realistic way to deal with the problem. As I read it, it seems to me that you would need a very large staff of individuals trying to cope with the designation process as outlined in this section. Maybe the minister could expand on that.

Hon. Mr. Mair : Yes, indeed. I think that the member's concern is a very valid one, However, we have to, of course, place ourselves in the hands of those who advise us.

When I talked to Mr. Clark, the rentalsman, concerning this and the distinct amendments that we're making to this

section as it existed, he assured me that this does not pose the problem that I would have thought existed. Apparently the situation which is basically in Vancouver.... It is elsewhere, I agree, but basically the basic core of the problem is in an identifiable area of Vancouver, and it is a situation that is easily identified. It's not something that is nearly as hard to pin down as one might think. His staff is aware of the situation. It's brought to their attention from time to time on a fairly regular basis. The words "continuous basis" assist him in identifying who are the people who live in these hotels as tenants, rather than as transients.

The basis complaint is going to come to the rentalsman as it always has – by way of request. In other words, the person's going to make the request. He doesn't think that it's going to pose any bureaucratic problem at all. I can't tell you, Mr. Member, whether or not it is going to be this big, that big or some other size. I can only go on what he tells me – that it is not going to pose a problem within the constraints of his present bureaucracy.

Mr. Wallace : Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, that answer really leaves me concerned, because first of all, the minister says that the person has to complain

[ Page 5089 ]

to the rentalsman. If you put that beside the ordinary tenant elsewhere under the law, surely it isn't fair to have one group of people who have to complain all the time before they get any protection from the law, compared to the tenants who are protected under

section 8 of this bill and by the rentalsman, or the prescribed decisions by cabinet that there won't be rent increases of more than 7 per cent. To place the onus on each individual resident of these downtown hotels that first of all he or she has to complain and scream and holler to the rentalsman.... They are not as knowledgeable about it as the landlord is. This is an unfair balance in the situation, first of all.

Secondly, what is "a continuous basis"? If an individual lives in one of these hotel rooms for three months and then moves out, and somebody else moves in and the landlord jacks up the rent by 20 per cent, how is the second person to know, necessarily, that it has gone up 20 per cent? Even if it has, if the previous person didn't complain and have the premises designated, the successor is over a barrel too, if I can use that expression.

It just seems to me that there's far too much being left in this section, first of all, to these individual residents in these hotel rooms to have to do all the hollering and screaming to get fair play as compared to other tenants. The definition under which some protection can be afforded to them is much too elastic and vague, in my estimation. I wonder why the government or the rentalsman cannot take the initiative of designating, rather than waiting for some individual to come and complain that the landlord's trying to, by intimidation or threats or otherwise, extract a much higher increase in rent than 7 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Mair : I think my choice of words was probably unfortunate, because what I should have said is that there must be a complaint, not necessarily that a tenant must come forward personally and complain. This is probably as good a time as any to pay tribute to the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, and Mr. Eriksen particularly. He can identify – and very quickly, I think – every single person that lives either in or near this situation in the cast end of Vancouver. I think that a complaint from him would be the complaint that we're looking for.

What I am saying to you is that we're not going to hire an army of people to go around knocking on people's doors and saying: "Are you or are you not in here on a con