1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 2665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce estimates.

On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot — 2665

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2666

Mr. Phillips — 2668

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2672

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2).

Report and third reading — 2674

Occupiers Liability Act (Bill 4).

Report and third reading — 2674

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6).

Report and third reading — 2674

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. McGeer — 2674

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2675

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2676

Mr. Cummings — 2677

Mr. Phillips — 2677

Mr. Lockstead — 2678

Mr. Gardom — 2678

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2678

Mr. Wallace — 2680

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2680

Report stage — 2680

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 9). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. Fraser — 2680

Report and third reading — 2680

United Family Court Act (Bill 49). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2680

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2680

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2681

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2681

Mr. Curtis — 2681

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2681

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2681

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2682

Mr. Curtis — 2682

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2682

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2682

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2683

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

section 10.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2683

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Report stage — 2683

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2684

Mr. Gardom — 2684

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2684

Mrs. Jordan — 2685

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2686

Mrs. Jordan — 2686

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2687

Division on amendment to

section 1 — 2687

Appendix — 2688

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills

Orders of the day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE

(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, it seems

like we started on this estimate some considerable time

ago.

However, from the time the government first presented this

particular vote in the Legislature, we've had a little journey

on the part of the Premier of this province and on the part of

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk). It was a very intriguing little sojourn off

into the Far East; and there were tid-bits of news coming

here. We saw some of the action that was visible to the TV

cameras but we didn't see all of the action that actually took

place in Japan — if you might call it action.

I'm a little disturbed with the fact that we didn't get the

score of the last rugby game. I was wondering, really: did

British Columbia win that game or did they lose it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are dealing with vote 125.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier

wasn't busy at this time he'd tell me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the Minister of Industrial Development's

estimates that are up.

MR. CHABOT: Well, maybe he can nod his head yes or no. Who

won the last game?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We won it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, thank you very much. You see, it was settled

very quickly. That's the last game you'll ever win.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I know that the Minister is extremely anxious to

get on with that northern trip — that propaganda trip into the northern part of British

Columbia to quiet down the natives, as they might call it.

That's why the Minister is waiting to get his estimates; and

I'm not one who will delay his estimates very long. But I think

he has the responsibility to tell us of some of the results of

that great trip into economic diplomacy.

Now the Minister went over there with the intention of

attracting a steel industry to British Columbia — or, at

least, attracting some of the financial resources, some of the

dollars, from Japan in a joint participation in a steel mill in

this province.

I must report, in view of the fact that the government and

the Minister have failed to report it at this present time,

that that particular episode into research of attracting a

steel industry was a dismal failure on the part of the

government — absolute dismal failure.

Here the Premier and the Minister had set their sights and

goals upon attracting an industry, because we know full well

that the government had gone into Europe and into England the

year before without success. There was a tremendous anxiety on

the part of the government to prove its ability to establish

secondary industry in British Columbia and to prove its ability

to attract financial investment in the province from Japan. We

know they're not interested in financial investment from Hong

Kong. But in that respect it was a failure.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it will be a

failure for ever after. I think the Japanese are sufficiently

wise in the field of economics to understand that there is a

great anxiety on the part of the government to establish this

industry in the province. Consequently, they have seen fit to

delay the matter a little bit longer so that the government and

the Minister will be a little hungrier for this industry, and

consequently they will be able to sign a contract that is

extremely beneficial to the country of Japan.

It frightens me the kind of contract that you might, or

might not in fact, sign at a later date with the Japanese to

establish a steel industry in this province.

I'm wondering if the Minister pointed out to the Japanese

when he was there just the kind of ore reserves that we have in

British Columbia. I think he can report back to us just what he

told the Japanese about the ore reserves we have in this

province — the kind of delineated ore reserves that will

sustain the kind of mill that you have talked about — a

mill in the neighborhood of 2 million tons per year, which is a

very substantial mill. And if you don't have the ore reserves,

I'm sure you told them where it was possible to secure iron ore

to keep these blast furnaces operating in British Columbia.

I'm certainly sorry that you weren't able to negotiate a

contract with the Japanese. However, at a

[ Page 2666 ]

later date you might negotiate one which might not be as

beneficial to this province as it might have been had you been

able to sign a contract at this time.

That's quite obvious, because the Japanese are able to

distinguish and to come to the conclusion that there is a great

anxiety on the part of this government to secure a steel mill.

They will come again. I'm sure they'll come again with a

contract. I want to read the contract very carefully, Mr.

Minister.

Now while you were away we managed to proceed through the

estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) with some difficulty. There were some rash

statements on the part of the Minister as well, which I'm not

about to repeat or allude to. But I do want to say that in

questioning the Minister I suggested to him that I had asked

you a few questions during the first episode of your salary

vote and that you had indicated to me that you were going to

Japan to negotiate the possibility of securing additional

markets for our coal.

I suggested to the Minister of Mines, in discussing his

estimates, that there appeared to be a lack of communication in

the cabinet. He said that that wasn't one of the reasons you

were going to Japan. But very clearly, I recall — and I'm

sure you will too — you did suggest that you'd go to

Japan to discuss the business of securing further markets for

our coking coal.

The Minister of Mines said that that's not one of the

reasons, because they're hammering on our door for coal at this

time; and how could the Minister of Industrial Development

possibly be in Japan attempting to secure additional markets

when these people are trying to knock our door down?

But I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you will report as to what

success you had in your negotiations in an attempt to secure

additional markets for our coal, because in episode one of your

salary vote I did point out the fact that the Japanese are

looking up to Siberia as a means of securing something in the

neighbourhood of 12 million tons of coal annually from that

area.

Now the Minister shakes his head. I hope that if they're not

looking to Siberia they'll look to British Columbia, because we

have coal in abundance. I'm wondering if the Minister will be

able to tell us just what the future is of markets for coal in

Japan.

Maybe this is an opportunity.... We did have a very brief

discussion on the question of securing steel for British

Columbia for the construction industry in our province. The

Minister indicated that there was an extreme shortage and that

he would secure from Japan something in the neighbourhood of

150,000 tons of steel for construction in this province.

He didn't give us an indication this afternoon. Maybe he's had an opportunity

to discuss it with that group which is either still in Japan or on its way back

from Japan. Could he tell us when the 150,000 tons he referred to this afternoon

will be available to the British Columbia construction industry? Could he tell

us what the price is, what the price will be of this steel?

Can he tell us what kind of consumption there is for steel

in British Columbia at the present time. He has, as he's

pointed out on numerous occasions, a very sophisticated

research group within his department; at least, they're

sophisticated if you look at the salaries.

I'm wondering if the Minister could tell us just what

volumes of steel are consumed in British Columbia today, what

the projections are for consumption in the future, what kind of

shortages really exist in British Columbia, and what kind of

dent this 150,000 tons will make on the shortage we have in

this province.

He was extremely vague this afternoon, and it is most

unusual for that Minister to be vague. Generally he's very

specific in what he says. But this afternoon it appeared that

it had been a waste of time — his efforts in negotiating

the possibility of securing steel for the construction industry

in our province.

I'll have a few more questions later, Mr. Minister. I've

asked you three very short, brief, concise questions and I'd

like the Minister to answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's astonishing, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister has not responded to those

questions from the Member for Columbia River. I wonder whether

he heard. Normally he's there and we often hear him, Mr.

Chairman, in debate. We often hear him when it's not his turn

to speak...he's squeaking away over there. There are times

when we have had to ask for a cushion for him so that he can be

seen as well as heard. Now he's totally silent. Why?

Well, I've got a few questions, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to

ask a question which I asked earlier dealing with steel and

steel contracts. The Minister talked about an agreement, and I

believe he gave the date of April 26 that this agreement was

signed — an agreement which was to give us three

different types of steel that he mentioned, at least, and

probably more types — 150,000 tons, perhaps more. He

indicated perhaps more.

He said nothing about price. He said nothing about delivery

dates. He said nothing about whether this was tied in any way

to any other agreements. And all these questions are as valid

at 8:50 p.m. as they were at 2:10 p.m.

I wonder why the agreement on steel has not been tabled,

because we appreciated the Minister's trip to Japan. We read

with great interest his voyage to the mountains at Lake

Chuzenji to try and find out how you put together a mariculture

programme at 4,000 feet above sea level. We were fascinated by

this

[ Page

2667 ]

information about sea farming at 4,000 feet. We were very

interested in his trip to Japan and the one thing that he came

back with....

I see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) laughing away there because he certainly avoided any

criticism by pleading innocence to any knowledge of the

subject. He was very smart. But back to the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce....

What precisely are the terms of the agreement with the

Japanese on steel? We haven't had them yet. We've had a

statement by the Minister which was tantalizingly brief and

tantalizingly imprecise. But if British Columbia industry is to

be spared this shortage of steel, we'd like to know a few more

details. I'm sure it was just jet-lag and fatigue which

led him to give a statement which was so incomplete. Now that

he's had a chance to rest a little, perhaps he'll be able to

give us more details.

He talked about a 22 per cent increase in Japanese

shipments. Twenty-two per cent up over what? There was no

reference to the base, the 100 per cent base. Now that's a

pretty interesting figure and I think we should have it,

because 22 per cent increases on top of nothing work out to

nothing. Twenty-two per cent increases on a fixed figure

are important, and perhaps precision could once more be

requested in this area as well.

I'd like to switch to another subject at the present time

and that is the....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, the Member for

Vancouver — Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) seems to want

the floor, Mr. Chairman. I'd be willing to allow him to have it

if he'd like to get to his feet and make a speech. I don't

know, would he like to?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Well, he can perhaps speak later

if he doesn't want to speak now.

I'd like to switch to another subject. We had comments from the Minister —

and, of course, from the Minister of Finance and Premier as well — dealing with

both smelters and an iron mill for the Province of British Columbia and steel.

I'd like to know what steel mill they had in mind, what the processes are, what

they discussed with the Japanese companies involved and how close they came.

I think that a statement, a report to the Legislature, a report to the people's

representatives, on the trip and the interesting discussions that he had would

certainly be in order, because I'm sure this Minister has much of interest to

tell.

I would like to know in particular the cost studies that

have been done with reference to the proposed steel mill. I'd

like to know in particular what environmental studies have been

done with respect to the proposed steel mill.

On the first subject I'll simply say, as I said when the

Minister was not in the House earlier last week, that some

countries have had great difficulty with the so-called

clean mini-mill. New Zealand was the example I gave. I

cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of the figures involved,

but I understand that they were able to produce steel

economically in only three different types of steel. Of the

other 161 types of steel that New Zealand used apparently the

cost factors were bad, or at least not good.

The mini-mill that they acquired resulted in a great

financial drain for that country. Indeed, they tried to sell it

to the Australian steel people, and they failed. They tried to

sell it to the Japanese, and I understand that finally they

tried virtually to give it away, and again they failed.

I don't know whether our situation is similar to that of New

Zealand, but I would like to know what economic studies have

been done, Mr. Minister, to indicate that this is viable, and

where it would be viable on the B.C. coast so that we're not

stuck as were the New Zealanders with their

mini-mill.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Minister,

I point out that the discussions I had with Hugh Keenleyside,

who's been involved in the development of underdeveloped

countries through the United Nations — where he was, I

believe, the senior Canadian civil servant of the United

Nations — indicated that one of the great problems they

had with underdeveloped countries was their desire for prestige

steel mills which were not economically viable.

Country after country would finally work out some deal with

a donor country and/or a supplying country for a steel mill,

and the result was an economic unit which was a tremendous

drain in many instances upon the normal economy of the country

involved.

Dr. Keenleyside, I must quickly point out, made no reference

whatsoever to British Columbia or to Canada in these

discussions. He talked only in very general terms about his

experience over more than a quarter of a century as one of the

top people at the United Nations, whose job it was to oversee

— I shouldn't use the word "oversee," perhaps, but

to advise — on economic development of many

countries.

In this area the United Nations had a great deal of trouble

because of the general belief that a steel mill was somehow,

ipso facto, good, and that economic studies need not be taken

prior to its establishment — that if it came it would

bring benefits and that the

[ Page 2668 ]

benefits would outweigh any economic disadvantages.

The result was, of course, that many countries were saddled with

mills which were not economically viable. I mentioned the example of

New Zealand, a country which perhaps is similar in some respects to us

here in British Columbia. I wonder whether the Minister would comment

on this.

I might add as an aside that the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) listened most intently

when I put this comment forward to him during his estimates;

and I think that in his replies he indicated that he was

certainly aware of the problem. I wonder whether the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is as well.

After all, it appeared that the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources was bypassed in this Japanese trip and in

the negotiations, and that's a curious thing. I wonder whether

or not this Minister has the information and has done the

studies which would be required before any representative of

the people of British Columbia who took their responsibility

seriously could possibly approve of a steel mill in any part of

the province at all — in other words, the proper economic

studies.

The Minister, I'm sure, will tell us that there are economic

advantages. But please tell us what studies you're basing it

on, and let us have more information than simply one man's

opinion.

The same is true of the environmental aspects that I

mentioned. The environmental aspects, well, they simply cannot

continue to be ignored as they've been ignored in the past. I'd

like to know what studies have been done in terms of site

selection, in terms of the process that you envisage and in

terms of the size of plant that you envisage for the protection

of our British Columbia environment.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

There's little value in getting some marginal benefit from a

steel mill, which may be marginal, and in turn damaging the

northern British Columbia salmon harvest. That's an example. It

may not be applicable, but it's the type of thing which I am

concerned about and about which I trust the Minister during

these estimates will have something to say.

All these comments, Mr. Chairman, could well be made of a

smelter as well — a copper smelter. I believe that a

copper smelter perhaps is more economically viable than a steel

mill. I don't know; I'm guessing on the basis of inadequate

information.

But surely if the Minister and the Premier and Minister of Finance discussed

with the Japanese in practical, realistic terms the establishment of a smelter

in British Columbia — and I don't know whether they did and to what degree they

did — surely there have been economic studies and environmental studies done,

and now is the time to make them public to the people of British Columbia, Mr.

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

I wonder whether you could perhaps comment: the steel supply

deal first, the terms of it; secondly, the question of a steel

mill and, thirdly, the question of a smelter.

Fourth, I wonder whether the Minister would indicate,

perhaps advised by his Deputy who is with him, of the

departmental purchase of a half-million-dollar

property at Kaien Island up in northern B.C. near Prince

Rupert. I understand it's not a bad purchase in terms of

purchase price. I think it's the Kilbrunner estate; I'm not

sure of the name exactly, but the Minister might well be able

to correct me if the name is wrong.

Now I'm not an expert in this area in terms of land values,

but I understand that it's been a

half-million-dollar purchase. I would like to know

whether or not the department purchased this directly from the

estate or whether there was some intervening purchaser, and

whether you in turn purchased it from the person or persons who

originally purchased it from the estate.

Perhaps the Minister at the same time, being a Minister who

believes in open government, would tell us the price which this

property was purchased for.

Mr. Chairman, those are four points, all of which I think

are worthy of some comment from the Minister. Like the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), I will now sit down and let

him reply, and perhaps I'll have a few more questions

later.

MR. D.M PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it is

amazing how silent this Minister can be. Not only does he not

do anything, but he doesn't say anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or know anything.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): You haven't given him a

chance!

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I remember standing in

this Legislature a year ago last spring when the Development

Corporation of British Columbia Act was being passed, which

gave the government the power to invest in industries in this

province. The Members on this side of the House were against

this Act because we felt that money should be loaned to

industry in British Columbia, and we felt we should not allow

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) the power to be a partner in industry.

At the time this Act was passing through the Legislature,

the Premier, stood in his place and reprimanded both the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself for voting against

this

[ Page 2669 ]

legislative measure because, as he said at that time, it

would retard development in the Peace River area. That

legislative measure, Mr. Chairman, put in the hands of the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce $25

million to assist secondary industry in this province. That was

well over 12 months ago, and not one single, solitary penny has

that Minister invested or spent or loaned to assist secondary

industry in this province. That's well over 12 months ago, Mr.

Chairman, and yet this legislative measure was very urgent when

it was passing through this House.

The purpose of the corporation was to create, develop and

increase income employment, tax revenue and other economic

benefits to the province by encouraging and assisting in the

establishment, expansion and continued operation of industrial

enterprises in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister full well knows that for my area

alone there are several proposals that have been sent to that

Minister. When the Minister was approached to make a decision

as to whether money would be available to assist these

industries, the Minister replied: "Well, you know, Mr. Member,

this department has been neglected for the past 20 years, and

what do you expect us to do in a short nine-month

period?" And yet in that same nine-month period his

racehorse cohort Minister, the Minister of Transportation and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), established the British

Columbia insurance industry, hired over 600 people, and spent

upwards of $20 million of money.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister thinks he's

preparing a case for court.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is

going to prepare all the facts and wait for somebody else to

make the decision, and I think he is ill-equipped for his

job.

MR. CHABOT: We want Calder.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being fair, but that Minister is not being

fair, and he should resign because in over 12 months not one

single cent of this urgent legislative measure that was passed

through this House over 12 months ago, not one single solitary

cent has been spent.

MR. CHABOT: Give Calder the job.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it takes, Mr. Chairman, this Minister 12 months to

make some decisions and hire some people to get his department organized, how

long is it going to take him to make decisions with regard to whether he should

invest in or loan money to specific industries?

British Columbia was the last province to sign up with

Ottawa on the DREE programme. You know, Mr. Chairman, this

Minister must have a tremendously difficult time at cabinet

meetings. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) is trying to slow and stop the mining industry in

British Columbia, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is bent on a course of taking

over the forest industry, development money is fleeing from

British Columbia, and yet this Minister says he wants to

develop industry.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister owes some

explanation to this House as to where this department is going

and exactly what he intends to do. You talk about northern

development. What does he intend to do? Where do you intend to

go in northern development?

MR. CHABOT: We want Calder. He'll do the job.

MR. PHILLIPS: This department is like the Department of

Housing — lots of talk but no action. Maybe, Mr.

Chairman, this Minister goes to cabinet by himself and sits

there all by himself in a dream world. But his dreams are not

being brought into action.

The Minister goes off on a long, extended tour of Japan,

looking for airy-fairy glamorous industries when he has

the opportunity right on his desk, and I will bet there are at

least 100 proposals on the Minister's desk to assist small

secondary industries in this province.

Mr. Chairman, not one single solitary decision is emanating

from the mind of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce. He told us originally when his estimates came to

the floor of this House that he was expanding his Vancouver

office, hiring more people, moving his office from here to

uptown Victoria. He's going to go into the industrial land

banking. There again he's like the Minister of Housing —

he wants to become a big landlord in British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): With somebody else's

money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, with somebody else's money — some

of the money that we voted to him to assist industrial

development in this province. It's like all of the other great

promises of this great people's, small people's government

— lots of promises but no action. When it gets down to

the nitty-gritty of making a decision, they're stuck. And I'll

tell you why they're stuck, Mr. Chairman, There isn't one

[ Page 2670 ]

single solitary Minister on that side of the House that has

the business ability to make a single solitary decision.

I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, I'm just wondering when that

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is going

to hire a commission like all of the....

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Sit

down!

MR. PHILLIPS: I won't sit down! Don't you tell me to sit

down, Mrs. Madam Minister of Consumer Services!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Sit down!

MR. PHILLIPS: When is that Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce going to hire a commission to

go out and make some decisions for him? Mr. Chairman, he's not

capable of making any decisions. More promises, no action.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, all of the small

industries and small businessmen who had new ideas, who were

hopeful of getting some assistance from this Minister today,

have lost all that hope. They have lost all that faith. I want

to tell you further they are disenchanted with that socialist

government too, just like all the other industries in the

province.

Maybe he'll come along some day and find some small

industries he can buy out and take over. That's what that

government is all about — buy out, take over. They

haven't started one, single, solitary thing, but they sure know

how to take over, buy out, cripple, weaken and then move in

with the thrust and take over.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there are lots of chirpers; over there.

All they know how to do is chirp. But there sure aren't any

solid decisions coming out of that side of the House.

Here is the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) saying he

wants a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia. Is

he working through the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce? Have you passed those proposals, Mr.

Minister of Mines, that have been placed on your desk by

private industry in this province to establish a copper mine in

this province? Have you passed those on to the Minister of

Industrial Development? If you have, they'll join the other

proposals. They must be filed in file 13.

You can hardly pick up a paper and not find some segment of industry in British

Columbia waiting, retrenching, stalling because this government has created

an air of uncertainty. That Minister will need more than $25 million to replace

the investment capital that the policies of his government have driven out of

the province. This province requires approximately $4 billion of investment

capital every year to sustain its growth and provide jobs for its population.

If the policies of this government continue at the present rate, that government

is going to have to come up with the entire $4 billion because it won't be coming

from the private sector. It won't be the risk capital from the private sector.

I wonder where the Minister of Industrial Development is going to get $4 billion.

Here is an

article from The Province of April 10,

dateline Toronto. "Drills Silent in B.C."

"Recent energy problems have sharply stimulated activities

in the drilling industry, especially for uranium and coal, an

industry spokesman said.

"William Mundle, president of the Canadian Diamond Drilling

Association, told a meeting of about 50 drilling contractors

here that the industry is fast recovering from a slump in 1972

and 1973.

" 'We estimate the mineral exploration surface drilling is

up about 23 per cent across Canada during the last eight to 10

months and should show an increase of up to 40 per cent in

1974,' he said in an interview at the start of a

three-day convention.

" 'British Columbia is the only exception to the bright

outlook in the drilling industry...."

Why is British Columbia the only exception to the bright

outlook in the drilling industry?

"'The mining industry in B.C. is so concerned about the

province's mineral royalty tax that exploration work is drying

up,' he said."

What is the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce doing about that? Does he ever go to cabinet meetings?

Does he ever sit down with his other Ministers? I wonder if he

ever talks to them. The

article continues:

" 'The B.C. mining industry is in a state of flux,' he said.

'Grass roots exploration is virtually extinct and the major

companies are concentrating on work on properties already in

the process of development.'

"Mundle noted, however, that coal exploration has increased

in western Canada and uranium exploration is thriving in

Ontario and Saskatchewan.

" 'Coal drilling work in the foothills of the Rocky

Mountains is being concentrated on the Alberta side, mainly

because of the B.C. government's decision to raise the

metallurgical coal royalty to $1 from 25 cents a ton,' he

[ Page 2671 ]

said."

Mr. Chairman, this Minister's portfolio should be the nerve

centre of meetings in the cabinet. If he is going to change the

name of his department from "Industrial Development" to

"Economic Expansion," that economic expansion must

include the Department of Mines, the department of forestry and

the Department of Agriculture, our three main industries in

British Columbia.

How can that Minister look those other Ministers in the eye?

How can he, out of one side of his mouth, talk about economic

expansion while the other Ministers are talking about

retrenchment?

We just went through the estimates of the Minister of Mines, another Minister who wants retrenchment.

How does he look at the Minister of Industrial Development when the

Minister of Industrial Development is for economic expansion? I'll tell

you how, Mr. Chairman. Because economic expansion in the hands of that

Minister is strictly a cliché

not meant for action — just a cliché, to bring in

all the hopefuls to the province to tell them about the industries they

would like to start. He will digest the proposals and, when the people

who are the authors of the proposals, who have the energy, and the

ideas, fade away out of discouragement, maybe then the Minister of

Industrial Development will march in with the usual policy and take

over.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he sure hasn't any

ideas of his own. If he has, they are all circulating around in

his brain, waiting for a decision to come out. And yet, while

we talk about retrenchment and no action, off goes the Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to Japan.

What for? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what for. When decisions

are waiting here in British Columbia to be made, why the

sojourn to Japan at the taxpayers' expense? — the very

taxpayers who are waiting here in British Columbia for some

decisions from this Minister. Did he go to Japan to clear his

brain so he can make some decisions? Why did he really go to

Japan?

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think he

fooled the Members on this side of the Legislature and I don't

think he fooled the people of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I would have loved to

have been a mouse on the plane coming back from Japan. Here is

the Premier and the Minister of Industrial Development saying,

"My gracious, we really didn't do much in Japan. What are we

going to tell the people? How are we going to justify our

trip?"

There they were, as the airplane winged its way over the

Pacific, scratching their heads and saying, "We're pretty near

to British Columbia. I'm going to have to face the people when

I get off that plane. What are we going to tell the people? We can't tell the

people about visiting all of the great industrial plants

because we're against private enterprise. We are against

it."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): What garbage.

MR. PHILLIPS: "We don't want to tell the people about the

fish hatcheries because we've got fish hatcheries in British

Columbia that are bigger and better than Japan. We don't need

to go to Japan to see fish hatcheries."

I can just imagine the great Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce, being the brains of the

outfit, preparing a case. He's going to meet the jury when he

steps off the plane; he's going to meet the jury. The jury are

the people of this great province. There are going to be

reporters there, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier says, "We're pretty near to British Columbia," and he starts to panic. "What are we going to tell the

great people of British Columbia? Why did we go to Japan? Well," the Premier says, "I can't tell them I just took you

along to carry my rugby outfit. No, because we had a whole

group of people to do that...."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Haw, haw, haw.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, haw, haw. I want to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, yes, there they are in that great jet; closer and

closer they get to British Columbia. They have been gone two

weeks. "What did we really accomplish while we were there?" the

Premier says to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce. "Really, what did we accomplish?"

Here he can see before him the lights and the TV cameras and

the reporters saying: "What did you accomplish in Japan?"

MR. WALLACE: They toured a couple of islands.

MR. PHILLIPS: They did a lot of touring. Yes, and they were

royally entertained. What did you call it? — the mission

of economic diplomacy. Finally the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce says: "We'll tell them we got

some steel." We'll tell them we got some steel.

He landed in Vancouver and he ran to the closest telephone

and he phoned back to Japan and he said, "Say, I forgot —

I want to ask you; we need some steel over here for our

construction industry." And the guy says, "Oh, you're the

people we entertained a short time ago. Oh, yes, we will see

you get your steel."

It could all have been done by a phone call, Mr. Chairman.

Every single bit of it could have been done

[ Page 2672 ]

by a phone call. We've got the coal; they've got the steel.

They need us; we need them. What else was accomplished?

Did the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce go to Hong Kong with the Premier to find out that Hong

Kong money is coming into the housing industry here? I don't

know. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce is going to put the $25 million

we gave him last spring into apartment buildings. The silent,

do-nothing Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce!

Mr. Chairman, do you realize that not one single solitary

decision has emanated from this Minister since he took his

portfolio? Not one single solitary decision in over 10 months!

I sure wouldn't want him handling my case. No sir! I'd rot in

jail before I ever got to trial.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to build us a steam bath.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I want to tell you that when you really

think about what this Minister has done, when you take and look

at it in perspective, Mr. Chairman, what do you come up with?

You come up with one big fat zero — but lots of talk.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What is this talk?

AN HON. MEMBER: While he was in Japan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is awaiting the word

from the Great White Father — the Minister of Lands,

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

MR. CHABOT: He's a one-boss man.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I, myself, and a lot of the

people on this side of the House were prepared to wait and give

this Minister an opportunity to do something. I, myself, and

all of the other Members on this side of the House, and indeed

most of the people in British Columbia tonight, are

disillusioned and discouraged with this Minister. We come out

with a great announcement, Mr. Chairman, that we have signed a

DREE programme. We've signed a DREE programme; we're going to

develop here in the Province of British Columbia.

I just finished doing a study. I got a complete portfolio of

this today. What, Mr. Chairman, does this DREE programme really

mean? What does it really mean to the Province of British

Columbia until the detailed agreements are signed?

I would like the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to

tell me here in the Legislature this evening just what benefits can emanate

to the province of British Columbia from the signing of this agreement. Mr.

Chairman, how long is it going to be before the detailed agreements are signed?

Who is holding them up? These are the questions that we want answered here this

evening. And we want them answered, as far as I am concerned, before the Minister

gets his salary.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

All I need are 54 more votes. The Member for Columbia River always supports

me deep down in his heart. I know that.

I have a file here of letters. Reading through these letters

I have at least made one decision that directly concerns the

Member for South Peace River, because some of the letters are

from him. That decision is that for a businessman he has the

poorest business judgment I have ever seen. He sent letters in

support of proposals from his riding that he has written

obviously without even taking a cursory glance at the proposals

that he was supporting to my department.

Would the Hon. Member like me to be specific? Would you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Be my guest.

MR. P.L. McGEER: You made a charge. Support it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Shall I? For the sake of the various

individuals involved, the Hon. Member knows the names of these

various support programmes.

There was the all-terrain vehicle. Do you remember

that one, Mr. Member? Do you remember your letter in support of

that? "I completely support the proposal." There is the pre-fab

home. On every one of those cases I sent the Hon. Member

letters back indicating that feasibility and technical studies

were being undertaken to see if they were economically viable

and whether the engineering was indeed correct.

One or two of the answers by the applicants have been

received. On the others they have been forwarded to the

development corporation board which is acting independently and

which will make its own decision about assistance. You will be

notified in due course of whether the board has decided in

favour or not.

Some of these proposals, I believe, are good ones. But the way the letters

from the Hon. Member read would indicate to me that he didn't know why they

were good or not. It was just a question of jotting down a few lines. It is

easier for him; he is a Member of the opposition. He hasn't got the responsibility

for the taxpayers' money in this province.

[ Page

2673 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Support your charges against him. He

hasn't done that yet.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. LAUK: I think it is clear that just because a Member for a

particular riding wants some pet proposals to come through, he gets miffed.

It is his judgment that is in question. That is the point of the exercise.

Now with respect to the other questions: the Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked some precise questions

over a much shorter period of time than the Hon. Member for

South Peace River. I indicated that the agreement with respect

to the supply of steel was 22 per cent. The Japanese producers

would provide 22 per cent over and above that steel they were

providing to British Columbia users in the 1973 period. That

is, all of them, It is useful to point out that steel in this province comes

75 per cent from Japanese producers. The total amount we have

not finally calculated. I would be estimating. The total

production used in British Columbia — and I am just

estimating because we haven't got the final figures....

Interjection.

HON. MR, LAUK: Yes, 22 per cent relates to what is available

from Japan. Now the amount used in this province is

approximately 300,000 or 400,000 tons, and 75 per cent of that

is of Japanese source.

The precise details are what the department is now

compiling, contacting the various users, to try to validate

whether or not they are going to be stockpiling and whether or

not this is a real shortage for that particular user. Overall

we know, of course, that the shortage exists; so we don't

expect too many problems. The delivery dates will be the usual

three-month delivery from the time of the order to

processing to arrival in British Columbia.

From central Canadian sources the price that you questioned

me on relates to price before rail shipment, in my estimation.

The price is cheaper before rail shipment, but there are

several other factors involved — not much cheaper, by the

way, but cheaper. It doesn't matter what the cost of the steel

is if you don't get it.

It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who went into a

store and wanted to buy a teapot. He said, "How much for that

teapot in the window?" The proprietor said, "$10." He said,

"Well, I can get that same teapot down the street for $5." He

replied, "Well, go down the street." He said, "But that fellow

is out of them." And the proprietor said, "Well, if I was out

of them you could have it for $5 too."

HON. MR. COCKE: It's $3.50 now.

HON. MR. LAUK: Or less. Now, the situation is simply this:

the steel is not available from central Canada and it is

available from Japan.

You questioned me about steel production. We went over there

with a view to discussing steel production within this province

and substantial progress has been made with respect to

negotiations with the Japanese steel producers. Announcements

in that respect will be made in due course and before any

establishment of steel production in this province we will

undertake thorough studies into the environment and site

location and processing size that will be required.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you look for some ore?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think you heard what I said: site

location, environment, processing size.

In addition you asked about economic studies. They have been

carried out for the last several months. It is, in our view,

economically viable — indeed, desirable and essential that

steel production exist.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, they are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

HON. MR. LAUK: Because they relate directly to the

negotiations still being carried on.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a few

points. He's worried about contracts. He's worried about the

kind of contract this government may sign with the Japanese. I

wonder where he was, and did he worry about the contract with

the Japanese with respect to the Kaiser coal resources? Where

was he when the Columbia River Treaty was signed, or the Skagit

Valley Treaty? Where was he when they were shipping copper

concentrates out of this province over many, many years with no

money back to the Province of British Columbia whatsoever? Of

course he wasn't around when there was the Wenner-Gren

proposal. Was he around then?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I can assure you, Mr. Member, that we will

not sign contracts like those. Never.

MR. CHABOT: You'll be skinned.

HON. MR. LAUK: He was mentioning that I sit in cabinet

dreaming. I wonder if he is still dreaming

[ Page 2674 ]

about the monorail going through the north. It was going to

be built by Wenner-Gren.

He mentioned coking coal. Insofar as coking coal is

concerned, Mr. Chairman, and the source from Siberia, it is a

little way down the road, the railroad. They had to build a

4,000-mile railroad to a coal deposit and they are not

quite sure where it is yet, in Siberia. Yes. And it is

something like eight or nine million tons that they expect to

be able to get out of there. But it was clear to us that the

Japanese are still very much interested in our coking coal, and

will be for some time. I, of course, reported that to the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

who knew full well the discussions that were going on.

Now, there was a question of a copper smelter being raised.

The committee that has been set up is a joint committee between

myself and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. We

think it is a good committee that will provide us with enough

information to make a policy decision with respect to the

establishment of a copper smelter in this province.

Another question was raised about Prince Rupert and certain

land negotiations there. I will say that land negotiations are

going on in the Prince Rupert area. The final arrangements have

not been made and I don't wish to get into details at this

stage.

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

report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it is such an interesting thing to

see all the Liberals here at once we thought we should give

them a chance to go on legislation.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Shall I get a

photographer?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we get a photographer here to get a

picture of this? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr.

Bennett'

s) chair — just like his dad — the empty

chair.

MR. CHABOT: Just like Williams — he hasn't been here

all session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's out chopping trees.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are they printed? I think you will find them on

page 23 of orders of the day.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

Bill 2 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

Bill 6 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974.

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section which provides

for the stripping off of hundreds of millions — not

hundreds of millions but well over $100 million worth of

public money, just like that. It is the end result of false

budgeting. It takes away from the elected Members of the

Legislature their right to debate by vote the expenditure of

funds. We see it all tossed into a weird

section such as this

one.

We don't know, for example: in

section 1(

a) how that $40

million will be spent; in

section 1(

b) how the $10 million

more will be spent; in

section 1(

c) how the $5 million more

will be spent there and so on through sections (d), (e), (f),

(g), (

h) and (i) — $5 million to $35 million at a crack

pulled out from the scrutiny of the elected Members of the

Legislature in favour of the Minister of Finance. It's bad

budgeting; it's bad government leadership and I'm against this

section.

[ Page 2675 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think sometimes opposition Members have

to define for themselves whether or not they just want to be

against everything, or that they've got some rationale behind

their arguments. The Member states that the money is spent

almost, in effect, willy-nilly by the government.

Section (

a) is controlled by

an Act of this House.

Section

(

b) is controlled by

an Act of this House.

Section (

c) is

controlled by

an Act of this House.

Section (

d) is controlled

by

an Act of this House.

Section (

e) is controlled by

an Act of

this House.

Section (

f) is controlled by

an Act of this House.

Section (

g) is controlled by

an Act of this House.

Section (h) — $35 million dollars of the people's

money which that Member alleges is being ripped off, or words

to that effect, is to build ferries that are long overdue to

serve the people of Vancouver Island and the mainland. The

Member talks about false budgeting, yet that Member is one of

the many who said that under this government the economy would

suffer, that incomes or revenues would be down under the

socialists.

MR. McGEER: I never said that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, Mr. Member, we heard your scare

speeches all over this province saying that the socialists

couldn't administer anything.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down now, Mr. Member, sit down. You'll

get an answer; you'll get a chance

MR. McGEER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have a point of order. I've got

the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to get you mad now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neither are you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's his point of order? You haven't got

a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier alleged that I said

the revenues in the province would go down....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order. Mr. Chairman,

that's not a point of order!

MR. McGEER: Check the record now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: I would just like to have truth in government....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. McGEER: Members are obliged to stand up and quote the

record whenever another Member has made a false accusation

about statements made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will both Members sit down, please?

MR. McGEER: We've got to have some truth from Members in

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was not a point of order. Will the

Minister of Finance continue, please?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, will you ask the Member to

abide by the rules of this House? That Member finds it very

difficult not only to attend, but when he does, to abide by the

rules. I think it doesn't serve any useful purpose for the

Member to abuse the Chair.

Mr. Member, I find the typical Liberal arrogance in somehow

trying to avoid their own responsibility in making decisions in

this House as to whether or not they support the expenditure of

funds for these projects outlined in this bill.

The former administration did find itself in a surplus

budgeting situation and set a pattern for the expenditure of

those surplus' budgets under Acts that we will continue to

spend under because we are not in the syndrome of wreck

everything, vote against everything, destroy everything simply

because you've got an ideological hang-up, Mr.

Chairman.

There are good things in this system and there are bad

things.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the moaning and all the groaning will

not wipe out the fact that that Member wants to go on record as

being against $40 million added to the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act under

an Act of this House passed by this

House —

[ Page 2676 ]

every single bill governing these funds.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the Liberals want

to separate themselves. We will just have to tell people

exactly where they stand: they are against $40 million for the

home acquisition Act; they are against the recreational

facilities; they are against the cultural fund; they are

against the sports fund; they are against the farina income

fund, farm products fund, school tax removal, ferries; they are

against it all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motherhood!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are simply against anything that they

cannot do themselves. They are little spoiled boys who just

can't have their way. Oh! What a naughty thing it was that the

socialists got elected over Social Credit. Those two groups had

power in B.C. In the way of the Liberals, and they still

haven't understood that the old-line parties, including

the Liberals, have been rejected in this province for over 30

years and will be rejected even more.

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

obvious that Barrett-san is still suffering from jet-lag.

(Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Time shock.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think he is suffering from future

shock, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman. He stands up and he makes

the same speech in defence of this kind of legislation as was

made by his predecessor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he's proud of it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's proud of it — proud of this

kind of fiscal manoeuvering. He says, "Well, you know, they are

all covered by Acts of the Legislature." Well, of course the

expenditure is covered by Acts of the Legislature.

If you look at that distinguished piece of legislation under

the control of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich),

the Farm Income Assurance Act , which is referred to in

subsection (

e) of

section 1— a beautiful piece of

legislation we passed last year, four sections long — it

is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who by

regulation is going to administer this fund. It is not spelled

out in the legislation as to how the fund is going to be

administered.

The fallacy of what the Hon. Premier has said is clearly

demonstrated when we find that in the Special Funds

Appropriation Act, 1971 we are to provide $10 million for

the farm income assurance plan — $10 million.

Every Member of this House and every citizen of the province who has taken

the trouble to read newspapers, and certainly every farmer in British Columbia,

recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture has already committed more than

that to just one segment of the agricultural community. Just one segment of

the agricultural industry is using up more than this legislation is providing

for the farm income assurance fund.

Then we have that other distinguished piece of legislation

which was brought forward by this government, which everyone

read with applause, the Community Recreational Facilities

Fund Act . That is controlled by some mysterious committee

apparently under the control of the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). But, Mr. Chairman, what do we

begin to hear from the community? Serious questions as to the

way in which these funds are being administered. Last week in a

boardroom on this floor, representatives from the community of

Sechelt came down to find out why, when they had been assured

that they were getting funds under this particular piece of

legislation, they were suddenly being denied.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who's their MLA?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Particularly when they were told the

reason they weren't getting funds was because the MLA from the

area didn't approve the project. The MLA didn't approve the

project!

I wonder how many opposition MLAs have been called upon by

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to indicate their

approval or rejection of any of these community recreational

resource fund applications. Not one time.

Have any of the opposition Members been asked to approve or

reject any of these programmes?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Not one time.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): No, not me.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister of

Health seems to take exception to what I say. But I'll tell you

that the citizens in Sechelt didn't take exception to what I

say. The fact of the matter is that the Member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) made it known that he didn't approve their

application and that is why they didn't get their grant. That

is why they were turned down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, if the Hon. Member wishes to deny

that then I hope he will stand in his place and do so. We will

be only too happy to

[ Page 2677 ]

produce the people from Sechelt who were told this by the

executive assistant to the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie on a point of

order.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, the allegation

being made on the floor of this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would advise the Hon. Member that is not a

point of order. If you dispute any statements made you can do

it after that Member is finished speaking. Those are the rules

of the House.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Apparently the Hon. Member has an

executive assistant who does all of his political work in the

constituency. He goes around and he vets all of these little

projects and then he gives his seal of approval. This is the

way the Legislature, through its legislation, is supposed to

control this worthwhile fund.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It so happens that one of the

municipalities in my constituency made application. They were

turned down once. I'm sorry, it wasn't turned down; it was

postponed once. Then they complied with all of the additional

requirements and were postponed again. All the while, the costs

of the community recreational project which was proposed are

rising to the extent that it may just be that, even if the

government decides to give them the grant, the other available

funds will be insufficient for the purpose.

This is why we oppose this kind of revenue surplus

appropriation legislation: it places in the hands of cabinet

Ministers and committees appointed by those cabinet Ministers

the power to select whether or not any particular group or

groups in our community are going to receive benefits or not,

without any obligation to account and without any obligation to

disclose the reason for either the allowance of an application

or for the rejection.

If the Minister of Finance believes that opposition to this

legislation is opposition to the very worthwhile purposes

spelled out by him when he introduced it, then he's wrong. The

opposition is merely to the method in which these tens of

millions of dollars are placed under the control of individuals

who are not accountable on the floor of this House. There is no

way of making them account on the floor of this House for the

decisions they make in respect of the recommendation for this

kind of expenditure.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): After hearing the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I'm thinking of

the great Liberal steal. It's called the Canadian mint in Ottawa.

The part that is bothering me very much is

section (d): $5

million, physical fitness. I stand here guilty; I have no

physical fitness. Last year I was finding that poor people who

needed help couldn't get any help. In poor areas, they needed

help for baseball teams, lacrosse teams, hockey teams, and

there was no proper place for them to get funds because most of

this money was being funded directly to the top of the

organization, such as directly to the B.C. Lacrosse

Association. It didn't get down to the ordinary people.

I don't want it to be carried on in this manner as the

Social Credit did because the Social Credit always handled it

very badly. I just hope you remind the directors who handle

this money to remember that this is for people, poor people

especially — little people.

To me, the way the Social Credit handled it was sort of like

watering the leaves instead of the roots of the youth of

British Columbia. I would rather see the water go directly on

the roots.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask the Minister of

Finance a couple of questions. The Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) has stated that there would be revisions and

amendments to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act . Here

we are voting, under section (1)(a), $40 million to be added by

the Minister to the fund referred to in

section 7 of the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if changes

to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act , as referred to

by the Minister of Housing, are going to preclude loans under

this Act to housing on other than provincial leased land. We

should be advised by the Minister of Housing or by the Minister

of Finance what changes are going to be made to the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act before we....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I realize that, but what are the changes

going to be? Here we're voting on

an Act to give $40 million to

the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and the Minister of

Housing says he's going to change the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act. What are the changes going to be? Maybe

this bill should be set aside until we see what the changes in

the Act are going to be. Maybe there are going to be changes

made in this Provincial Home Acquisition Act that would

not allow certain people or certain types of homes to receive

grants under this Act. I would like to know before we....

[ Page 2678 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this is quite true. Sometimes they put

the cart before the horse and sometimes they put the horse

behind the cart.

MRS. JORDAN: They put it on backwards.

MR. PHILLIPS: They've already appointed a rentals man, which

is in defiance of this Legislature, before the Act even comes up for

second reading.

Here we are with the same type of deal. We should be told what the amendments to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act are going to be before we okay

this $40

million which, in view of statements made by the Minister of Housing

and by the Minister of Finance and by various other Ministers on that

government side of the House about housing and the development of

housing and keeping foreign capital out of the housing field, really

could only be a mere drop — not in the bucket but in the barrel. If we

are not going to have risk capital coming into the province to provide

much-needed housing to alleviate the housing

crisis we have in this province, this $40 million, as I say, wouldn't

be a drop in the bucket but a mere drop in the barrel.

So maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance would advise

the House what legislation is coming in to change the

Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Obviously I support all sections of this Act,

but there are two articles of this Act of vital concern to my

constituency, particularly the matter regarding improved ferry

service and transportation services to my constituency. It has

been a matter of deep concern over many years.

It is unfortunate that the former government decided not to

improve ferry services since 1970 in my riding. I think it is

absolutely vital that the people in my constituency demand

improved ferry services. This government has the foresight to

spend money and build ferries, and I think it is extremely

vital to my constituency.

The other item, Mr. Chairman, that is of great interest in

my area is the $10 million to be added by the Minister to the

Community Recreational Facilities Fund. Very nearly every

community in my constituency has now, either in the planning

stage or in progress, recreation facilities.

In the area of Sechelt the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) has approved the grant to that particular facility, providing they

meet certain sections of the Act which will be added to their lease so the facility

will be open to the public. Providing the recreation association and the municipal

council meet these requests by the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Department

of Recreation and Conservation, there is almost no question that the moneys

will be granted. I thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, we heard

a bit earlier tonight the Hon. Premier with the same old fog,

his arms waving and his nostrils flaring, talking the same old

silly, simplistic and complete and utter nonsense to the

approach that has been taken by this party.

This party is not opposed to the projects that this bill

provides and never, ever has been. But it is completely opposed

to the preposterous methods that this government is utilizing.

If these funds are required for the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act for community recreational facilities, for

the British Columbia Cultural Fund, for the Physical Fitness

and Amateur Sports Fund, for the Farm Income Assurance

Act , for the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act ,

for school tax removal and resource grants — whatever

that thing is going to possibly end up being — for ferry

capital expenditures, B.C. Medical Centre — well, that's

fine and dandy. Let's hear what the precise reasons are. Let's

have the cost projections. Certainly, let's have public

accountability.

Public money should at all time be subject to the closest

scrutiny that government can provide and with definite fairness

and freeness of approach to all members of society and all

Members of this assembly.

It was rather shocking to hear the remarks — that were

uttered by my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) — which certainly appears to be a

non-patronage or ultra-patronage approach,

depending upon the point of view, of one of the socialist

Members.

I cannot for the life of me see why, when they are proposing

to have under this new government an open government, they are

following the fund system. It is far better if the dollars are

required — and maybe more dollars are required —

that we have the reasons for it. Let's vote upon it, and let

that all be a subject of the estimates and subject to debate in

this House, which these funds are not.

The Premier is shaking his head. But he knows as well as I

do that they can be subject to abuse. I'm not saying they have

been, but they can be subject to abuse. I think it is most

unwise in a contemporary democracy, if we are that today

— and that remains to be tested, I suppose, come the next

election — to find that we are voting an enormous amount

of money — $140 million — without precise reasons,

precise estimates, precise projections, and without any

accountability whatsoever.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate the caveat; I

think that is the word lawyers use. I think that is close to

what you lawyers use; that is, you watch your back. You weren't

accusing anybody

[ Page 2679 ]

of any wrongdoings and I appreciate that. I just didn't like

the use of the words by your colleague, the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

The accountability is there, of course, in public accounts.

It is there in the legislation. And the practice of the

previous administration in terms of surpluses was to put it

into special fund.

I think that when you anticipate revenue and your revenue

exceeds what you have anticipated, and then to be attacked

because you have underestimated your revenue on an honest basis.... Considering the atmosphere that was created deliberately

by the Social Credit Party and the Liberal Party and the

Conservatives that doom and gloom was here under socialism,

despite that atmosphere that was deliberately created by those

people, the province went on to its greatest year ever.

We want to put these funds back to the ordinary people of

this province. But no matter what you do, as far as the Liberal

Party is concerned, you're condemned anyway. I notice that

there is a quiet silence of approval from the official

opposition, certainly from the Leader of the Opposition. His

silence is magnificent these days. I know they support it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't intend to attack him while he is

here or while he is absent. I'm just making a casual

observation. He is the only one who has found a method to keep

quiet in the opposition. Nonetheless, he is able to show some

self-control by divorcing himself entirely from his

group, which is, perhaps, the smartest move he has made since

he became leader. I wouldn't want to be associated with that

group myself. So, I suppose, the absence is a pattern.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now that we are able to interpret that

silence that is presently welling itself up into another level

of noise, look at the Tories. The Tories also recognize that it

was the people of this province who provided this magnificent

sum of money. It's the government's intention to spend the

money.

MR. GARDOM: Who has not said that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The kind of paternalism exhibited by your colleague,

the other Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tonight (Mr. McGeer), when he makes

his silly statement and then runs off somewhere...that's kind of galling.

I appreciate your defining and separating yourself from that Member's remark

by deliberately saying that you're not accusing anyone of playing around with

money. You don't agree with the method.

MR. GARDOM: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, now that's an honest difference of

opinion. We have a surplus. We're channeling it this way. There

is a pattern of channeling it. Under the former government

there was no hanky-panky that we could find in terms of

those funds. Certainly the question of philosophy was

different, but there was no hanky-panky in the accounting

system. We've checked all that out.

Why should we throw out the baby with the bath water? If we

inherited something from a former administration that is

administratively functional, surely to goodness it is not the

responsibility of the government to throw over everything! If

we are defeated, surely to goodness, whoever came in would

continue it — just like the free-enterprisers took

over B.C. Hydro.

To be fair, the proper thing to do would have been to give

it back to the shareholders and then take it over the right

way. But we didn't do that. That's the same way in terms of

reality; what you find is functional administratively, and

that's what we find, and that's the method we choose. So that's

what it really boils down to.

Now in terms of the specifies, certainly we have to make

decisions about the specifics. Item H(

i) for example, is a

matter that was raised frequently by your colleague, the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — the

need for extended medical services. And what a wonderful thing

it is!

Quite frankly, what a wonderful thing it is to be in a

position to be wealthy enough to say we have surplus funds. By

the passage of this Act we are going to put in a fund of $10

million to establish a British Columbia medical fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can still do it without a fund.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, all you are talking

about is a niggling disagreement about approach, and that is

really a matter of opinion. We think this approach has worked

successfully before in British Columbia, aside from our

difference in philosophy with the former administration. Why

throw out the baby with the bath water?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, okay, we are aware of that. If we

wish to change it, we will come to the House and amend the Act.

That's where the responsibility is. So I have no hesitation in

presenting

[ Page 2680 ]

this approach. The money belongs to the people; it is going

back to the people. And that's really what it is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Just in case the Premier should misunderstand

silence as being total and complete consent, I think the

Conservative Party certainly does support the very worthwhile

concepts in

section 1.

The attitude described by the Liberals, I think, has some

merit but, in trying to bring a constructive and positive

approach to this House, it is very obvious that the value of

section 1 and the causes to which the money is dedicated far

outweigh any reservations that we in this party might have

about the method being used by the government.

One could nit-pick because I notice there is $35

million for ferries, and we already know at this point in time

that we need at least $40 million. But I don't think that is

the kind of criticism or comment that really helps very much.

As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, it just wastes more

time. He's hoping that I'll sit down, and I think I should.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

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

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 7, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The amendment that is here in my

name I don't think is necessary in view of the commitment we've

had in the last couple of days from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). I don't intend to move it.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

UNITED FAMILY COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a short comment. For years

I have called in this House and outside this House for a

totally new concept for the administration of all facets of

family law, hopefully under one roof and, as much as possible,

to have a departure from the adversarial procedure —

which has always been so characterized by fright and combat

— to an inquiry and a remedial and a counselling system

that I hope would stress sympathetic informality.

I don't think this bill has gone as far as it should but I

would like to wish it the greatest of success. I commend the

Attorney-General and commend all of those people in the

legal profession and in the family-service interest in

the Province of B.C. who I know have contributed a great deal

to its worth. I think it's innovative legislation and I think

we're going to have to be patient with it in practice and in

procedure. I wish it every success.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if I may add a somewhat

non-detached view of the legislation, I share the

expressed hope with the Member for Point

[ Page 2681 ]

Grey. Legislation never really solves human problems; but if

this legislation can create a more flexible and more

understanding atmosphere with which we can provide services,

then it will be a major step forward.

I still cling to the personal view that if society demands

from the state an obligation to involve people in counselling

during or proceeding a divorce hearing, I still would like to

see some discussion, perhaps in this House, of pioneering a

bill that I've yet to convince my own colleagues of. It has

been treated with some humour.

MR. GARDOM: Put it in a private bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, that would be most welcome. The

concept is that counselling is important before marriage takes

place. I know that has been treated with some humour and some

attempts to interpret the state as interfering too much. But,

quite frankly, if the state presumes to interfere, as it does

through this bill, surely it has an obligation to extend that

service prior to that marriage taking place.

But, nevertheless, this is a good bill. It is true, as the

Member said, that many people in the community were involved in

submitting suggestions and ideas and years of experience, not

only from pastoral backgrounds but from social service and

legal benefit to those people who unfortunately may need the

services of the Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: While we're all enjoying the opportunity

of going back into second reading (Laughter), I too would like

to join with the Hon. Premier in the comments he has just made

and hope to encourage his colleagues, and in particular the

Hon. Attorney-General, in taking a step which I think

will, if anything, reverse the one questionable feature of this

particular legislation.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, without infringing on your rules.

If you recognize in

section 1, we're still talking about

courts, being the Provincial Court of British Columbia, and

judges, being a judge of the court. Just let me as the Premier

makes a plea for some pre-marriage counselling

facilities, make a plea to the Attorney-General for

people who find themselves in need of this kind of service.

When are we going to take a true, positive step to end the

adversary system in the attempt to resolve family problems?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this legislation just doesn't do it, and that's

the only real criticism I have. I know it's a step forward; it's an improvement

with respect to some of the details of the existing legislation. But it has

not grasped the opportunity of breaking away from the adversary system which

only tends to make more difficult the resolutions of those personal matters

that involve husband and wives and their children when they come before the

family court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate what has been said. But

would point out that the bill is quite revolutionary in this

respect. In later sections it enables the court to send

somebody out, receive a report, investigate something and use

its family counselors with a view to settling things before

there's ever a need for the parties involved, whether they be

husband and wife who are having a spat or children in need of

protection, to crossing the threshold of the court.

So we're really going a long way away from the adversary

system in that attempt at preventive family and juvenile

protection law and in the attempt to settle things without

coming into the court atmosphere. We bring those things to the

judge and the court only that really have to come there when

attempts at conciliation have failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that the Attorney-General has closed

debate in principle, shall

section 1 pass? (Laughter.)

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I rise very

briefly to say that we feel this is one of the better pieces of

legislation which has found its way through the maze of

government. We do support it.

I have a couple of questions on some of the other sections

as they come along. It does appear to be a move in the right

direction. I say that as a layman. Those individuals who are

reviewing legislation for us have indicated they also feel this

is a good step and deserving of our support.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I am not opposing the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, but I wonder if the Attorney-General would

indicate the rationale of the provision I wonder if the

Attorney-General, if he would direct himself to

subsection and subparagraph b of that particular section, would

explain to me or anybody else how an agreement could be

enforceable against a child in any event, because the child

must be the beneficiary of that agreement. It seems to me those

words create a conflict. If the agreement is for the benefit of

the child, then I don't see how it can

[ Page 2682 ]

ever be enforceable against that child. Yet the words would

lead one to that conclusion.

There is also another problem with

section 2. It provides

means of having an agreement between husband and wife enforced.

But before the agreement can be enforced, there has to be a

consent given by the parties in a particular form. Yet the

section is intended to be applicable with regard to agreements

entered into before this legislation is passed. I just fail to

recognize how you could possibly have an agreement executed a

year ago enforced under this legislation when this legislation

provided a specific form of consent which the parties obviously

couldn't have known was in existence at the time they made the

agreement. The chances of enforcing such a prior agreement, I

suggest, are less than zero. Perhaps the Attorney-General

might clear my mind on these matters.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the first point. It's true

that a child may be disposed of by a separation agreement and

evidence of his consent would be of no effect because he's

under age. Therefore we say "except a child" in the section.

But this might be a custody thing or something of that kind.

That's why the agreement and the order of the court in a sense

is binding upon a child even though there's no point in asking

for the consent of the child with respect to the evidence

because of the age factor. That's the way it is; these things

do affect children.

In regard to the second point, agreements entered into

before might deal with custody or maintenance. I would think

that the Supreme Court of B.C., in any case, will look at a

separation agreement, certainly in custody cases and even in

maintenance cases, and be prepared to vary them.

This is an attempt to give to the provincial court in this

experimental jurisdiction what the supreme court had and no

more than the supreme court had with respect to variation of

agreements.

MR. CURTIS: To the Attorney-General: in

section 2(1)(a),

the custody of "maintenance for," what in this context

does maintenance include? I have the feeling that it is

difficult to define and therefore could be unenforceable. It's

a very loose word in this particular application.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It means an amount awarded — in

this case in the separation agreement — or, as it may be

converted into an order of the court, so much a month for the

support of the child, payable on such and such a date and up to

the age of such and such. That's what "maintenance" means in

this particular section.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't wish to go over the matters that

I've dealt with before. I'm afraid the Attorney-General

has missed my point, but I'm not going to belabour it because

it's obvious that it's not going to be changed.

If I could direct him to

section 2(3), it says: "An order

under subsection (1) respecting the enforcement of a provision

in a written agreement may at any time be altered, varied or

rescinded." Mr. Attorney-General, if you look at

subsection (1), there is no provision there for any order at

all.

The only reason I raise this is that if we're going to do

something significant with this Unified Family Court

Act, we can't have legislation which is going to be either

meaningless or subject to attack. Subsection (3) talks about an

order made under subsection (1), and there is no provision

under subsection (1) to make any order at all.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there is. If you take a collective

agreement — I'm talking like a labour lawyer; I mean a

separation agreement — into court, the family court can

then make an order of the court under

section 2(l)(b). It

becomes an order of the court and then in the usual way the

court can vary or rescind its own order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman, I will take exception

to the Attorney-General on that.

section 2(l)(

b) says

nothing about an order at all. All it deals with is one aspect

of a maintenance agreement — "a provision respecting...the maintenance

of a person...." All the

section says is that if there is an agreement

between the parties then you can go to the court and it can be enforced

as if it were an order made under

section 25.

When you get down to subsection (3) it says: "An order under

subsection (1)" — and, Mr. Attorney-General, there

is no authority on the part of anybody to make any order under

subsection (1). It's just the fact that the language is drawn

in that way; and you're going to have it tested by some smart,

highly paid lawyer in the family court and your legislation is

going to be useless.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're getting into a legal argument

here, but I think that when the first part says that the

agreement may be enforced in the family court, to do that the

court would make an order, and that's the order referred to in

section 2(3).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it's an order under 25, then, not

under this section.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

[ Page 2683 ]

section 4.

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

on page 20 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to move

the amendment on the order paper to

section 6.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the Attorney- General

that he direct himself to the first line in

section 6(4).

Perhaps the committee might agree, if the

Attorney-General does, when I suggest that the words

which read "Notwithstanding that the question was not referred

to the Judge of the Provincial Court...." should read "a

Judge." Taken into conjunction with the earlier sections, I

think there appears to be an inclusive rather than an exclusive

definition. I just think that changing the

article from "the"

to "a" would make sense. Perhaps the committee would agree.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree, and I ask leave of the

committee to make that change without notice — that is,

to change "the" to "a" in the first line of

section 6(4).

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing on page 20

of the order paper to

section 9, dealing with family

counselors. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When we were discussing the matter of the adversary

system as applicable to these particular problems, the Attorney-General made

reference to the fact that the court could appoint people to make certain investigations

and so on to ensure that the parties could be aided in arriving at a settlement

before becoming adversaries. It's because of

section 10 that I took the particular

exception that I did.

If the Attorney-General would take note, he would

recognize that the right of the court to appoint someone who is

a family counsellor or a social worker to investigate a party

to a family matter is only initiated when there is an

application to a judge by a party to a dispute or an

application to their lawyer. This is why I'm concerned about

the approach that this legislation is taking. Before we even

get to the opportunity to use this kind of facility the parties

are already obliged to go to a judge in a courtroom, with

lawyers and so on, and they're already involved in the

adversary system.

What I'm asking for when I talk about a break away from the

traditional approach to the resolution of these problems I

think is something completely different. While I appreciate

that what we have is an improvement over the existing state of

affairs, it doesn't really break the parties away from becoming

involved with lawyers and judges and courtrooms and all the

people who accompany the administration of justice. When they

get into that situation they're pretty well bound into a

quarrel, whether they want to get out of it or not. I just

think that we need an entirely new approach. I urge the

Attorney-General to consider that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I always appreciate it

when my learned friend goes beyond what we're doing here,

because I think we may very well go beyond, and perhaps we

should. This is experimental and it should be subject to review

and monitoring.

I would point out that I think that

section 10 takes care of

the case where one person makes a complaint to the court. Then,

without a court proceeding, this process can be embarked upon.

Also, in

section 9(2)(b), again the family counsellor can also

go out and meet with the people without the necessity for any

court proceeding at all. So we're moving a long way in that

direction and we'll continue to watch that point.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2684 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Unified Family Court Act , reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

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

section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments standing in my

name on the order paper to

section 1. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. GARDOM: I might observe that this is another measure

that initiated at this doorstep and as a matter of fact it came

within a whisker of becoming law in the fall mini-session

in 1972.

But I do differ, Mr. Chairman, with the mandatory power that

is given here, limited though it is, for the courts to award

interest in all cases save and except the couple of items

deleted under

section 2. The court has the mandatory power here

to order interest as it deems appropriate, the only limitation

being an interest rate less than that provided under the

Canada Interest Act for judgments. But it does have to

order some interest.

I would very much like to hear from the

Attorney-General as to reasons for this mandatory power

as opposed to a discretionary power. Where there has been an

exceptionally difficult and unfair plaintiff who may well have

a technically correct position and from that point of view his

cause of action may be excellent but he still may be on very

poor moral or equitable grounds, I think it most unfortunate,

under those circumstances, that the defendant should, in all

cases, be saddled with interest.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, where there is an obtuse and difficult point of law

or

interpretation involved we find a judgment that in many cases is ordered

by the court reluctantly against a defendant. In many cases we find the court

reaching a reluctant decision in favour of a plaintiff by criticizing legislation

that is on the books, saying that it is up to forums other than itself to bring

in remedial action.

I think there is no question of doubt that if a defendant is

guilty of improper delay in not earlier paying a plaintiff and

depriving a plaintiff of the use of his money or damages that

may be claimed, then certainly the defendant should face the

penalty of an interest assessment at such rate as the court

would consider proper. But, surely to goodness, that should be

discretionary from the point of view of the court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we are following the

recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.

MR. GARDOM: I know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't answer your question, I

know. We are not making it retroactive to apply to any recent

libel cases where judgment may have been rendered.

That doesn't answer your question. What does answer your

question is that the theory of the bill is that at a certain

point the judge has to make his decision. He decides that as of

a certain date when the cause of action arose, A owed B X

amount of dollars. Therefore A was holding X amount of dollars

that belonged to B in effect, for that time. So some interest

should be awarded.

I recognize that the discretionary thing is another way to

approach the subject. We've chosen this way and we say that the

plaintiff who has been unfair or dilatory can be mulct in

costs. We think that in this case interest should follow as a

matter of right with the rate to be set by the court.

MR. GARDOM: If that was your intention, Mr.

Attorney-General, perhaps you should have included a

condition in the bill to indicate that fact. We don't see in

the bill the plaintiff being mulct in costs to offset an

interest charge that you have made mandatory.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's part of the loss.

MR. GARDOM: If you will study the report that I'm sure

you've looked at from the Law Reform Commission you will find

that in other areas, and in other jurisdictions the

discretionary approach has been utilized and has worked very

favourably.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address

myself to the same problem and to respond to what the Hon.

Attorney-General has just said.

There is no question that in actions or contracts, debts,

and those of similar pecuniary import the

[ Page

2685 ]

Judge in fact finds that as of a certain date, when the

cause of action arose, party A owed party B so much money. It

is only just that that money should be paid with interest.

But then there are pecuniary awards that flow from matters

other than contractor debt, as the Attorney-General well

knows. I'm thinking particularly of damage awards for personal

injuries, real or imagined, as in the case of libel or slander

as the Hon. Attorney-General has pointed out. It seems to

me that in cases of that kind that the judge should be given a

discretionary power as to whether or not, in order to provide a

just remedy, it is appropriate that the successful plaintiff

— and it could only be awarded to a successful plaintiff

— should have interest.

I can surely recognize, as in the instance which I referred

the Attorney-General to during second reading, that where

an insurance company disputes its liability to, say, a pension

claimant and there is a long trial, when the pension claimant

or the widow under the policy eventually received benefit that

the court should say: "Well it was a worthwhile question of

law, but the person should be awarded some interest on that

phoney." But this is far less often than one might assume.

I think that if we are giving our judges the power to grant

damage awards and to rely upon their skill, experience, and

judgment in arriving at those awards that we can also rely upon

them to consider those particular cases and what interest

should properly be awarded in the justice of the case.

What I am concerned about, Mr. Attorney-General, is

that by making it mandatory, what you do is impress upon

judges, who approach the matter equitably, another problem. If

they are dealing with a matter such as libel, Mr. Chairman, if

a judge knows that a cause of action has been before the courts

for, say, a year or more without any improper delay being

attributable to any party, the judge indeed may take into

account the fact that he is going to have to make a mandatory

interest award in arriving at the amount of his judgment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why should he?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I appreciate that he shouldn't but

I remind the Hon. Attorney-General of the famous story

— I'm sure it's only a story — of the two lawyers

who were appearing before a judge and were discussing with the

judge the various items that should be considered in

determining the amount of the pecuniary award. Both of them

having made various submissions, when the judge finally gave

his award one lawyer turned to the other and said: "The old

goat has added in the date too." The judge peered over his

glasses and said: "And so I have, my man. And it is going to

stay that way."

You know, these things do occur. I just think that not to

place in the hands of the responsible members of the bench a

discretionary power is somehow remiss on the part of the

Legislature in dealing with legislation of this kind because it

may, indeed, work an injustice in as many cases as it would

work in favour of justice.

MRS. JORDAN: As always, I hesitate to speak with the learned

counsels in this House because I have no deep knowledge of the

law at all. I brought this matter to the

Attorney-General's attention when he first introduced the

bill and I would like to again because, to my disappointment,

he has given it no consideration whatsoever.

This is in the matter of where interest is awarded to the

defendant and the delay of time of judgment has been

substantial but is not, in fact, due in any way, shape, or form

to the actions of the defendant but is due to the actions of

the counsel or the lawyer involved, or the plaintiff. Then, Mr.

Attorney-General, I feel the defendant is being penalized

unfairly.

It is all very well, as the lawyers and the

Attorney-General are very conversant in all the

technicalities of the law and have lots of money to spend

themselves, for the Attorney-General to say that then

the defendant can turn around and have recourse, through the

courts, to his lawyer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm in hock to the income tax.

MRS. JORDAN: Well if you are in hock and such a poor

money-manager you shouldn't be Attorney-General of

the province.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, what average person who is involved

in a court case, and who might be unjustly charged with an

interest rate due to delay, for one reason or another, on the

part of his lawyer, would really have the inclination or the

money to pursue a case against his own lawyer?

For one thing, if one has a lawyer then one assumes they are

chosen because they have confidence in this person and they

would be handling more than one case for the individual. They

are likely to be handling a lot of family matters.

In a small town, Mr. Chairman, where people know each other

well, a client would be most loath to take a court action

against their lawyer or even to appeal to the Law Society,

which is not likely to be effective.

So I ask again, Mr. Attorney-General, would you please

make provision so that at the discretion of the judge —

if you meet the requests of the Hon. Members of the Liberal

party who have spoken on presenting discretion to the judge in

this matter — at that time the client may make his

presentation to the

[ Page 2686 ]

judge of why the delay was not his responsibility

— that is, the responsibility of the lawyer.

This could be taken in consideration then and there could be

a recommendation from the judge to council that he reduce his

fee by a certain amount owing to the fact that for one reason

or another he did not commit his obligation to his client.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, which way we go in terms

of discretion is a nice point. We've gone this way; we'll

listen.

MRS. JORDAN: Why?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've given the theory as to why we're

proceeding the way we are. And I think we'll listen to judicial

comment through the next year.

In answer to what the Member for North Okanagan has said

— you must remember that whether the period of time is

six months or six years, the fact is that the defendant has had

the use of that money and is earning interest on that money

during that period.

MR. GARDOM: Not necessarily so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Presumably he earns interest on the

money.

MR. GARDOM: Sometimes they don't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes they don't. Sure they don't, I

know. And I think the Hon. Members want to weaken the bill.

We're trying to make a strong bill in the interest of justice

here.

MR. GARDOM: No way.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We want to make it clear that when

somebody has a damage claim, say against a large insurance

thing or a big company, that there's no incentive for that

company to delay the proceedings because they have the use of

the money in the meantime. We want to insure that plaintiffs

have justice so that if they're dragged through the courts over

a long period of time before they get their money, at least

they'll get some interest on it. You supported the principle,

and we've gone a little bit further than you say we should have

gone, now you're almost against it.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm for it.

MRS. JORDAN: For all the ranting and raving by the

Attorney-General, and his marvellous show, he's missed

the whole point of my point.

He's showing himself again always wrapped up in this myth and fiction of the

big companies. He is referring to this over and over again in discussion of

this bill, both in second reading and now. He says at the plea of the Hon. Members

for discretionary powers that we will listen to judicial comments.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General should be listening

to the people's comments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have.

MRS. JORDAN: This is one of the greatest problems we have

got in society today, that people are victims of judicial

wrangling, comma-moving and haggling. The

Attorney-General is doing nothing to free the people from

this type of legal jargon which has become a bondage and made

them slaves to the lawyers, really. It's the people that I'm

concerned about, Mr. Attorney-General.

You talk about the use of the money to earn interest. You

are thinking of insurance companies and major corporations.

What average Joe, who kills a cow on the highway and there's a

court case over it and it goes on for three years, has pots of

money that he's earning interest on? He's probably up to his

eyeballs in debt. That's just a smokescreen and a fallacy, Mr.

Attorney-General.

The average family in British Columbia is not out investing

every nickel; they're rotating their money on a daily spending

basis with a small amount of saving. And they get skinned in

the courts.

Your unwillingness to listen to the plight of the small

person in relation to this bill, make room for him for some

common sense judgment, is just protecting a legal profile that

you project in this House, and, as I say, is going to skin the

little guy.

Please, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Attorney-General, would you get out of the judicial

clouds and the history books — your name is going in

there in gold letters — and come down to the level of we

average people in this province who are going to have a problem

with this

section of the bill. Will you make provision for the

human errors that are going to occur on the part of lawyers?

Will you recognize that not everybody in the courts is a

corporation or a big government, that there are a lot of people

in courts who don't have "the use of the money to earn

interest"?

The payment in capital terms and in interest is going to

come out of their pay cheques, probably on time. If it is, in

fact, the responsibility for the lawyer that the delay was

there, then, Mr. Attorney-General, you have a

responsibility to see that the lawyer bears that

responsibility, not the little guy, and not to tie it all up in

this mythical jargon you've got about big corporations.

Look at the law books in British Columbia — I'm no

authority but I've had a lawyer take it through — British

Columbia is one of the most litigation-active

[ Page 2687 ]

provinces in Canada. And of those cases a major portion are

not corporate cases, they're individual cases involving many

small families. So please, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Attorney-General, won't you not listen to the judicial

voice in everything — will you listen to the people? Will

you see that they're not skinned in this way? And, by George,

I'll put a footnote to you in gold in the history books —

that you were a great Attorney-General and you did listen

to this concern for the small people who are really going to be

hurt.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, pilot legislation dealing with

interest on judgments was first considered way back in 1833 in

a statute known as Lord Tenterdon's Act, and it made some

provision for interest. Then in 1934, England, under their Law

Reform Act, enacted a provision somewhat similar to this, but I

understand it was discretionary. Then we found similar

legislation in New South Wales, in Queensland, in New York

State and, to a lesser extent, in Ontario.

But I absolutely fail to see why it should not be left to

the courts to make up their minds whether or not interest

should be allowed. The judges have that capacity and I think

they have that responsibility. I say to the Hon.

Attorney-General that to suggest if a judge finds that a

plaintiff acted without propriety, he can penalize him in

costs. You're suggesting a completely new concept of the law of

costs because in 99 cases out of 100 costs follow the event and

the courts are very, very loath to exercise the discretion of

not awarding a successful plaintiff costs. They're very loath

to do that and they only do that in the most exceptional

circumstances.

There's another point which you have failed to consider Mr.

Attorney-General. What about the delaying jurist? We have

those situations in this province — where litigants have

waited for one reason or another for the better part of a year

for a judge to come down with reasons. Does that mean that the

defendant is going to have to pay interest for that year

through no fault of his own because the court has taken a year

to make up its mind and reach a decision?

We're running into some very, very contested cases of which

the Hon. Attorney-General has more particular knowledge

than do I — very difficult cases whereby judgments are

reserved. If you've got a reserved judgment, for six months

shall we say, on $20 million, does that mean we're going to

automatically find 5 per cent of that being awarded against the

defendant? That's not fair. That's totally inequitable and you

know it is.

You can well remember many cases when you were in active

practice yourself whereby litigants had to wait for the better

part of three months to six months, and unfortunately in some

situations even to a year to get judgment, then to find an awarded interest

becoming mandatory. That amounts to almost a statutory theft.

That's a poor deal. I think all the Hon. Attorney-General

has to do is in the first line of this

section take out the

word "shall" and put in the word "may".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Emasculate the bill.

MR. GARDOM: That is absolute rot. He says "emasculate the

bill" when we find comparable legislation in these other areas

that I've mentioned — in England where it's worked

effectively, in New South Wales, Queensland, New York State and

also in Ontario. I'm not aware of the specific provisions of

the Ontario statute, but all you're doing is blindly following

the report of the Law Reform Committee, and to suggest to this

Legislature in response to the lady Member's question, "We'll

let the judge see how it works." That's a preposterous

suggestion and I agree thoroughly with her sentiment that it

has nothing to do with the judges. They're not paying the 5 per

cent; it's the individuals who are.

Look at the judge — this is going to be in the back of

his mind: maybe there's a situation that requires the greatest

of expertise, the greatest of research, the greatest degree of

study on the evidence that has been presented, the requesting

of transcripts, going over them in minute detail. He cannot be

rushed, in certain circumstances, to arrive at his reasons for

judgment, but he's going to have this hanging over his head. He

has sort of reached the position that the plaintiff is entitled

to recovery, but he's not too sure of exactly how much or

whether the counter-claim should be allowed in its

entirety.

We had enormous cases here in the construction of the dams,

some of which are still undecided. The biggest one is still

undecided, and with many, many issues there. Does this mean

that the judge is going to feel that he's going to have to be

rushed into making a decision by virtue of this minimum 5 per

cent penalty of interest? I think it's a very unfair premise. I

don't think you would have any difficulty with this bill.

It's not a question of emasculating; it's a question of

bringing in proper legislation. And this should not be a

mandatory interest provision. It should be a discretionary

interest provision.

I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the word "shall" in line 1

where it appears be deleted and the word "may" substituted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

[ Page

2688 ]

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

MR. CHABOT: It's 11 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House I think we

should carry on with this bill.

Leave not granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee, in discussing Bill 66, reports

progress and asks leave to sit again. And the committee asks leave to record

in the Journals that a division took place.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on pages 2681 and

2683:

49 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of

the Whole on Bill (No. 49) intituled Unified Family Court

Act , to amend as follows:

Section 2, line 7: By deleting the words "by a judge".

Section 4, line 22: By striking out the word "inquiry" where

it appears the second time and substituting the word

"inquire".

Section 6: By deleting lines 3 to 7 and substituting the

following:

" (

a) in

section 18 (2) (y) , by inserting after the

number '15,' the number '23,'; and"

By inserting after

section 6 the following as

section

6A:

"6A. The Testator's Family Maintenance Act being

chapter 378 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia,

1960 , is amended by adding after

section 18 the following

section 19:

"Jurisdiction of County Courts.

"19. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the

County Courts have jurisdiction to hear any application which

may be, or has been, brought in the Supreme Court if all

parties entitled to apply or required to be served pursuant to

the provisions of this Act agree by a memorandum signed by them

or their respective solicitors or agents, that any County Court

named in the memorandum shall have power to hear such

application; but the agreement shall not prejudice or affect

any right of appeal of any of the parties."

Section 9, subsection (3), clause (b) , lines 3 and 4: By

deleting the words "objects, at the time the family counsellor

is called as a witness in the proceeding," and

substituting the words "does not consent".

[ Page 2689 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 2684:

66 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of

the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Prejudgment Interest

Act , to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(

a) Line 4: By striking out the word "to" and

substituting the words "in respect of".

(

b) In (2) (a) , line 2: By striking out the

word "after" and substituting the words "immediately

following".

Section 2:

(

a) By repealing clause (

b) and substituting

the following:

" (

b) where there is an agreement between the parties

respecting interest; or' .

(

b) By striking out the period in clause (

c) and

substituting the word "; or".

(

c) By adding the following as clause (d) :

" (

d) where the judgment creditor waives in writing

his right to an award of interest."

Sections 3, 4, and 5 are renumbered as sections 4, 5, and 6

respectively and the following is added as

section 3:

"Default judgment.

"3. Where a judgment is obtained by default under

an Act or

the rules of court, the registrar of the court may exercise and

carry out the powers and duties of the court under this

Act."

Section 4 (as renumbered): By striking out

section 4 (as

renumbered) and substituting the following:

"Payment into court.

"4. Where a party pays money into court in satisfaction of a

claim and another party does not accept the payment and obtains

a judgment for an amount equal or less than that paid into

court, the court shall, notwithstanding

section 1, award

interest only from the date the cause of action arose to the

date of payment into court as if the date of payment into court

bad been the date of judgment."

Section 5 (as renumbered), line 1: By striking out the word

"section" in the first line and substituting the word

"Act".

Section 6 (as renumbered), line 2: By striking out the word

"May" and substituting the word "June".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada