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, MAY 28, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964,

Between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company, and Her

Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1974 (Bill 145). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 3453

Oral questions

Report on conflict of interest on part of Highways

engineer. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3453

Municipal Affairs entourage on Iron Curtain trip. Mr. Fraser — 3453

Increased wages for prison inmates. Mr. Wallace — 3453

Reduction of gasoline taxes. Mr. Morrison — 3453

Government's intention to lease or rent Scott Block. Mr. Chabot — 3454

Present role of members of proposed police commission. Mr. Curtis — 3454

Strip mining in southeast B.C. Mr. Wallace — 3454

Violation of Landlord and Tenant Act. Mr. Chabot — 3455

Progress of negotiations in construction dispute. Mr. Gibson — 3455

Government purchase of Inner Harbour property. Mr. Morrison — 3455

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 11).

Committee, report and third reading — 3456

Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13).

Committee, report and third reading — 3456

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 4).

Committee, report and third reading — 3457

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3457

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Mr. Wallace — 3457

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3458

Report stage — 3458

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65).

Committee, report and third reading — 3458

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3458

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

section 6.

Ms. Sanford — 3458

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Curtis — 3459

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3459

Mr. Wallace — 3459

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3460

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3460

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3461

Mr. Curtis — 3461

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3461

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3462

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3462

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 3463

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3464

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Curtis — 3464

Mr. Wallace — 3464

Mr. Morrison — 3465

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3465

Mr. Fraser — 3466

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3466

Division on amendment to

section 6 — 3466

section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3466

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3467

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3467

Report stage — 3467

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

81).

Committee, report and third reading — 3467

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3468

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3468

Report and third reading — 3468

Debtor Assistance Act (Bill 77). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3468

Mr. Phillips — 3469

Hon. Ms. Young — 3470

Trade Practices Act (Bill 126). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3470

Mr. Phillips — 3472

Mr. Gibson — 3472

Hon. Ms. Young — 3473

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British

Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 139). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3473

Mr. Phillips — 3474

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3474

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3474

Pharmacy Act (Bill 106). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3475

Mr. McClelland — 3475

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3475

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 89). Second

reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3475

Mr. Gardom — 3477

Mr. Rolston — 3477

Mr. McClelland — 3478

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3478

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3478

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3478

Introduction: Presentation of Commonwealth parliamentary delegation to the House.

Mr. Speaker — 3482

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3482

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers .

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

Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of

students from the Moscrop Junior Secondary School in the heart

of Burnaby-Willingdon, with their teachers, Bill Waters, Sharon

Hall and John Wiebe.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the Premier of British Columbia I'd like to introduce

two constituents of his and a niece and nephew of mine, Mr. and

Mrs. Willis. Mrs. Willis was Miss Vancouver some years ago.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT

BEARING DATE THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

1964, BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT,

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN HER RIGHT

OF HER PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Ratify an

Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964, Between

the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company,

and Her Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province of

British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 145 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

REPORT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ON PART OF HIGHWAYS ENGINEER

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I say to the House

that the department has received the report that was asked

about yesterday from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

It's in the Department being vetted. I didn't know that

yesterday, and I wish to apologize to the House. I will be

looking at it as soon as I have a recommendation from my

officers.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ENTOURAGE

ON IRON CURTAIN TRIP

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has the

Minister invited Jim Campbell, chairman of the Capital Regional

District and a noted Saturna Island sheep farmer, to accompany

him on his rapid transit trip to Europe and certain other

points beyond the Iron Curtain?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I haven't invited Jim Campbell. I've

invited the regional district to send a representative and I

understand that Jim Campbell is coming as their representative.

Also, I have asked the Vancouver Regional District for a

representative if they wish to send someone as well.

MR. FRASER: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister: has anybody else from the municipal field been

invited other than those you've mentioned?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

INCREASED WAGES

FOR PRISON INMATES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General, in view of the recent approval of a federal

policy to pay $2.20 an hour to working prison inmates in the

federal system, if similar action is under consideration in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that

question as notice. I'm not familiar with the federal programme

so I can't tell you that it's under consideration at the

provincial level, but I will look into the matter.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Attorney-General at least tell us whether there's any further

consideration being given to the situation in Riverview which

was recently uncovered where patients were being paid a very

minimal amount of money for work done?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: (Mike not on)… Department of Health,

I think, Mr. Speaker.

REDUCTION OF

GASOLINE TAXES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Premier as Minister of Finance. In view of the

announced reduction in gasoline taxes by the Province of

Manitoba, could the Minister of Finance now advise the House if

he has any similar announcements to make at this time to the

people of British Columbia?

[ Page 3454 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I welcome that

question. I hope by Friday of this week to be able to make an

announcement. If I'm not in the House I'll make it somewhere in

the province, I hope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION TO

LEASE OR RENT SCOTT BLOCK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Public

Works: does the government intend leasing or renting the Scott

Block on the corner of Hillside and Douglas where long-time

tenants are presently being kicked out on the street?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

if the tenants are being evicted we know nothing about it. We

have plans for neither of the questions which he asked.

PRESENT ROLE OF MEMBERS

OF PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION

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

the Hon. Attorney-General: are any individuals who have been

named to serve on the proposed provincial police commission

which will be established under Bill 91, the Police Act,

now functioning in any capacity in the Attorney-General's

department?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. John Hogarth is, of

course, a consultant. He has been working for some months in

terms of the preparation of the new Police Act as well

as in consultation with police forces and other interested

bodies. Gordon Cunningham of the RCMP, because of his position

as assistant commissioner in British Columbia and also in

consultative work in connection with the new Police Act

could be considered to be working with the department at the

present time. Reverend Burroughs — I don't think so because

he's still, I believe, a member of the Vancouver Police

Commission.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. A supplementary. Is it a fact,

through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, that a

number of duties or activities which will be under the general

direction of the proposed provincial police commission are now

being carried out in the absence of legislative authority?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the preparation for some of

the studies would certainly be underway through the

department and, as I say, under the auspices of John Hogarth and the justice

development committee. They're not, of course, under the

umbrella of the Police Act, because the Police

Act has not been passed by the Legislature. But some of the

studies are already underway. As for the outline of their

future activities, work is being done in that connection.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to address a question to the Premier, Minister of Finance,

rugby player and one-time ball pitcher. In view of the

tremendous demand for energy in the world and in view of the

increased demand for good coking coal, has the Premier made any

further progress towards finding a partner for the development

of the Sukunka Coal fields in the great Peace River area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to tell that Member that we're

still in the ball game.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked

a question dealing with the use of police to provide

confidential reports to the liquor authorities on hotels in the

Vancouver area.

He indicated in his answer that he was unaware of the

representations. I wonder whether he's had a chance to

check his correspondence to find a letter of April 4, 1974,

referring to a conversation that he had with a lawyer by the

name of A.L. Vanderhorst, and whether he can now inform us what

the practice in future will be with respect to the use of

police forces to carry out confidential investigations for the

liquor authorities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice

also. I looked for my Pinks because the Hon. Member asked a

question, and I believe the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) yesterday asked a question; I didn't find my Pinks,

which I usually check out to remind me of these questions. I'll

take it as notice till tomorrow.

STRIP MINING

IN SOUTHEAST B.C.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Mines if he's aware of the serious statements that have been

made by two government biologists about the serious

environmental damage being done by strip mining in southeast

British Columbia.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, could I then

ask the Minister whether at the present time in his department

there is any particular study

[ Page 3455 ]

going on on the subject of strip mining and its

environmental consequences?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Land Use Committee is continually

dealing with this question of environment. In regard to strip

mining, we have our reclamation experts working on that all the

time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that

these are also government biologists who are making this very

serious criticism. Do they have input, or have there been any

recent meetings which these biologists or their confreres have

been consulting with the Land Use Committee on this particular

issue in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know what biologists you're

talking about, but I take it that it was an

article in the

paper, and they've got a privilege to speak out as they see

fit, I'd say.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member supply that

information to the Minister so that he may check that out?

VIOLATION OF

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Housing: can the

Minister advise on what authority the B.C. Housing Management

Commission is threatening to violate the Landlord and Tenant

Act in the rent freeze by their letter of April 30 to

tenants? It states as follows:

"It is not our intention to increase the rent, but if it

becomes necessary to replace a roof or a heating unit, et

cetera, the rent would be increased in sufficient amount and

amortized over the remaining years to recover the required

replacement or repair."

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: It could be substantially more as well.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'd like to have the

Member send me a copy of the letter, and we could look into

this. I don't know in what area this is taking place, whether

it's in Vancouver or Victoria or other places.

MR. CHABOT: Both places. Could I table this letter that's

been sent…?

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest the Hon. Member has no right to table it

as a private Member, but I would suggest that the Hon. Member might transmit

it to the Minister for reply tomorrow.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You could with leave, if you ask.

MR. CHABOT: Could I have leave to table it? It is sent out

to tenants…. I received it this noon.

Leave granted.

PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS

IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question to

the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister

can advise us of any developments, either positive or negative,

in the progress of the construction negotiations.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no

advice to give the House other than that negotiations are still

continuing. The only reports I have received are positive ones

and they were through the media which were available to any

other Member of the House.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE

OF INNER HARBOUR PROPERTY

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Public Works. Is the government negotiating with

Marathon Realty for the purchase of any of the property in the

Inner Harbour now?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental then. Could the Minister please

advise us of the state of the negotiations at this

moment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll take notice on that as there is more

than one, and the negotiations are continuing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. As this is critical to the

public hearings which the government itself is sponsoring

tomorrow evening, may I ask the Minister whether he will

provide full information by way of a statement on motions

tomorrow afternoon so we can have some idea of government's

intentions with respect to the south side of the harbour which

is critical to discussions of the Reid Centre?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a

[ Page 3456 ]

perfectly ridiculous statement, as we expect from this

quarter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to

that remark. Tomorrow afternoon the government is having public

hearings, and according to their radio advertising these will

determine future development of the Reid Centre for which the

province has paid many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These discussions cannot take place intelligently without some

idea….

MR. SPEAKER: Is this debate that the Hon. Member is

indulging in, or a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then I'll ask a supplementary question.

Is it true that while the Minister has dilly-dallied over the

Marathon Realty property, the price has gone up from $1.4

million to $2.3 million?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for

Victoria has covered two or three properties. I would like to

tell him just this on the Reid property, seeing he raised it.

Yes, a cabinet committee met with Mayor Pollen, and we agreed

to buy the Reid property either on our own or jointly with the

City of Victoria. The only point of difference was that we felt

we should try to get as good a price as possible because we

knew that the development permit was running out and this is a

minus, not a plus. So we said we'd like to get the best price,

but we will buy it.

In less than a week, the mayor of Victoria called a special

meeting, said nothing to us, and allowed Sandy Reid to peddle

his development permit that could add up to $1 million on that

property. He let us and the people of Victoria down in so

doing.

I find it very ironic when I pick up the most recent edition of the Journal

of Commerce where they write: "Reid Holdings Sold" and it states that when Mr.

Pollen was an alderman, he defeated Courtenay Haddock on the strength of promising

to cut Reid down to his size. I think Mayor Pollen cut the City of Victoria

and this government down by pulling that sort of an underhanded deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now as far as Marathon property…we are in the

process of negotiations. I have stated to the opposition before that it's not

in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province, the people of the City

of Victoria or the Members to divulge what is going on until we have consummated

the deal. We'll give you the full facts and figures, and if you want to see

the cancelled cheques, you can see them too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your argument to the Minister and Mayor

Pollen is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not you

can have meaningful discussions with the public tomorrow

evening when we don't know what their future guarantees for

property purchasing are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member not

indulge in speeches.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Committee on Bill 11.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Income Tax Amendment. Act, 1974 , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

PROBATE FEES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page

3457 ]

Bill 13, Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 , reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

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

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive as amended approved.

section 5.

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

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I don't

rise to raise any particular criticism to

section 5 as it is amended; but yesterday

when we had second reading on the debate, the Minister indicated that they would

be sending information bulletins abroad in the province so that people might

recognize their eligibility for this tax deferment.

I would just like to say that I trust that the information

bulletins will encourage people who may fall within the

eligibility classification to take very careful advice as to

the consequences of their deferment so that this decision,

which may have an effect on their future dealings with respect

to property, will not place them at some disadvantage.

We all welcome the flexibility which this legislation

provides. I just think that some warning should be included:

that people should consider this as carefully as they would any

other significant business transaction that they take with

regard to their property.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have instructed the

department to ensure that the explanation accompanying this

bill and the benefits, if the homeowner wishes to take

advantage of them, are clearly spelled out as well as the

consequences and the exact nature of the programme itself. But

I want again to publicly emphasize the fact that this bill is a

help to some people. I don't want anyone in the province to get

turned off because of irresponsible statements from the Leader

of the Opposition.

As I understand it, the pamphlet outlining the benefits of

this bill will be completed within three weeks. It is being

considered to do a straight householder mailing to ensure that

everybody has an opportunity to examine just what the

consequences are.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, on

section 5(4)1

just wanted some clarification from the Premier in light of the

statement he made very clearly yesterday refuting the

possibility of the amount of taxes to be deferred exceeding the

actual value of the property. In subsection (4)(

a) there is a

paragraph which in effect says just that — that where the

actual value of the property determined by the assessor is less

than the outstanding tax liability and charges, no deferral

agreement can be made.

Does this really relate or is it intended to relate to a

situation which may arise a few years after taxes being

deferred? I can't understand how the actual value of the

property right off the bat could be less than taxes

outstanding.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't see any situation, Mr. Member…. Certainly once an agreement is entered into, this would not

be retroactive.

[ Page 3458 ]

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive as amended approved.

section 8.

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

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 8 to 20 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Real Property Tax Deferment Act , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 112, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 112; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In the definition of general affairs, Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Hon. Minister could elaborate. It

seems to clearly restrict general affairs to matters dealing

with islands. I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether

or not in his view the

section Includes matters which affect

islands and also non-island areas, because the actions may do

just that. There seems to be an exclusion here of any matter

which may affect a designated island and also part of the

mainland.

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

intention is that it only affects the islands, not the

mainland.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

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

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive as amended approved.

section 6.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): On

section 6, Mr. Chairman.

Section

6(2) refers to the requirements for building permits, which

must be approved by the trust according to that section. But it

also makes provision for the trust to grant exemption from that

particular provision. I wonder if the Minister would elaborate

for us as to when the trust might exempt the islanders from

that particular subsection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think that in certain areas and under

certain conditions it may be advantageous and more reasonable

for the trust to allow the building of structures without a

permit from it. I would leave the decision on whether or not a

particular area should be left alone — maybe it's an area which

has no building code and that sort of thing

[ Page 3459 ]

— with the option that the trust would find out itself which

areas should be left out of this provision.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, in

section 6(4) I think we see clearly the double standard which

is to be found throughout this bill. I believe it is a most

regrettable situation. In subsection (4) we have an instance

where:

"The Crown in right of the province, or an agency of the Crown as defined in the Public Service

Labour Relations Act , shall not develop or dispose of land

situated within the trust area unless the Crown or the Crown

agency first gives notice of the development or disposition to

the general trustees."

One of the points that I understood to have been made very

clearly by the all-party committee which produced a report last

year was that there was a need for coordination between various

Crown agencies and government departments. Indeed, we spoke of

this as did other Members in debate on second reading.

It seems rather pointless to establish a trust which will

have sweeping powers over individuals, private companies and

residents of the Gulf Islands and yet the Crown agencies — B.C.

Ferry Authority, B.C. Hydro and so on — will, as I interpret

this, simply have to notify the trust that it intends to

develop or sell some land or run another very ugly series of

power lines over a particular island. If it is fair for the

trust to have authority over the individual and over private

people then surely it is fair for the trust to have the

authority of veto over a Crown agency.

I recognize that the trust cannot be superior to the Crown

itself, but most certainly a Crown agency should not be able to

simply fire off a letter to the trust indicating that as of

next November, or whenever, it is going to proceed with a

development which might be completely contrary to the intent of

this Legislature and, most importantly, to the intent of the

trust.

For that reason I have a motion to amend

section 6(4) by

deleting all of the words after the word "unless" in the third

line and substituting the words: "the Crown first gives notice

of the development or disposition to the general trustees and,

in the case of a Crown agency, first receives the approval of

the trust with respect to any such development or disposition."

I so move.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, the government is unable to accept this

amendment. I would explain in this particular paragraph that the amendment gives

a veto power to the trust over all other Crown agencies and Crown departments.

This

section is here so that in actual practice there will be consultation with

the local trust group, whether it is a trust committee or whether it is the

general trust. As a result there should be complete co-operation and coordination

between the separate departments, the Crown agencies and the trust itself.

That was one of the recommendations, I think, that came out

of the committee. In my opinion this fulfils the request of the

all-party committee which made the recommendation in the first

place.

Obviously, what will happen is that any Crown agency or any

department of the government will be in consultation with the

trust before such actions as a power line or a new highway or

whatever are taken.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That is a very disappointing

answer from the Minister. As he knows, when he sat on this side

of the House, the promise of consultation and co-operation and

all the other words you can use which imply that two parties to

a situation will talk with each other was a story we often

heard from the former government. But certain arms of that

government and certain Crown agencies nevertheless went ahead

and did exactly what they liked. B.C. Hydro certainly has to

have the worst record in that regard.

We raised a matter here in the House the other day, to which

I never got an answer, when I inquired about the Minister of

Transport and Communications' plans for a ferry terminal on

Gabriola Island, to pick that as an example. I got no answer to

that question.

As the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has

pointed out, this piece of legislation and this particular

section 6 is setting a very clear precedent in the Province of

British Columbia. I don't want to repeat all of the arguments

we put forward in second reading but basically we in this party

and, I think, on this side of the House are very perturbed that

government, perhaps with the best of intentions, is attempting

to tell a certain part of the population of this province in a

certain part of this province what is good for them. In so

doing, they are granting powers to a group of three people

appointed by government to completely control, for example in

section 6(2), the construction or enlargement of building

premises.

As the Member for Saanich and the Islands pointed out so

well, if this kind of new power and veto and control is to be

applied to each and every citizen in the area of British

Columbia concerned, why should not the same kind of control

apply to arms and agencies of government?

We've heard so many times in this House, in different

departmental debates, of the great difficulty encountered by

the individual or groups of individuals in getting the kind of

co-operation and consultation which the Minister promises.

While the Minister's genuine intent is to consult and

co-operate, there should be some kind of protection in this

section of the bill to a much more reliable degree

[ Page 3460 ]

than exists in the language we have quoted, namely, "The

Crown in right of the province…shall not develop or dispose

of land…unless (it) first gives notice of the development…."

On this side of the House, based on experience of the past,

we don't feel that just giving notice is a satisfactory action

by any agency of the government when, in point of fact, every

other individual who lives in the area to come under the

jurisdiction of this legislation has t o obtain approval of a

government-appointed group of three people. It is the kind of

legislation we have talked about in other respects, in the

Land Commission Act and the Energy Commission and a few

other bills before this House, where we have people appointed

by government, given a great deal of authority over the lives

and some of the rights and freedoms of the individual and yet

there seems to be a double standard. The standard to be applied

to arms and agencies of the Crown is a little different from

the standards to be applied to the individual.

It is my personal feeling that this bill exemplifies this

sad double standard to perfection. We are taking a completely

different approach to agencies and arms of the Crown than we

are taking to citizens of this province. It's the old story, in

my view, that this government seem to think that the individual

is here to serve the state instead of the other way around: the

state is here to serve the individual.

This is another clearcut example of giving freedom of action

and authority and control and power to three individuals

appointed by the cabinet who can tell any individual on the

Gulf Islands concerned what he may or may not do with his

property. Subsection 2 makes that unmistakably clear. Then,

when we get down to subsection 4 which we are trying to amend — and this is why I'm so strongly in favour of the Member for

Saanich and the Islands' amendment — we find that Crown

agencies do not have to come within the purview and the control

or even the recommendations of this committee of trustees.

If we had some happier examples to refer to in the history

of the previous administration in particular, and even with

this administration, we would perhaps be more prepared to

conclude that the Minister's reassurances about consultation

were adequate. I feel very strongly that the kind of amendment

this party is putting forward and the fair play which it would

encompass to anyone, Crown agency or citizen, trying to carry

out any development on the islands just makes sound common

sense.

It seems to me that, while the Minister has said there will be cooperation

and consultation, subsection 4 as written simply means a Crown agency can give

notice to the trustees. The three trustees could be unanimously opposed to what

the agency of the Crown wants to do — for example, build a ferry terminal and

create more traffic on a certain island or build highways or something of this

nature. The government is not really being sincere in following up in written

legislation what it espouses in word, both in the House and outside of the House.

I think this is a very reasonable amendment and I would hope

the Minister would reconsider.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I too would like to support the amendment

and urge the Minister to reconsider his rejection of it. I

don't wish to go back into the debate in principle but I must,

in commenting upon this amendment, refer the Minister and ask

him to consider the wording of

section 3(1). It clearly

states that the whole purpose of establishing this islands

trust, in which the general trustees are essentially the

governing body, is to preserve and protect the unique amenities

and environment of the trust area, these designated

islands.

All Members on all sides of the House, even though they may

have criticized the legislation, were in support of the

committee's recommendation that something had to be done in

order to look after these unique islands which we have under

consideration. Yet we find, when the government wishes to deal

with those lands, it need not subject itself to the

consideration of any trustees, general or local.

When you consider that on Saltspring Island the majority of

the persons employed are government employees with ferry

service, they have the greatest interest in the continuation of

the activities of that employer. Yet if the ferry service, for

example, wishes to take any action with regard to development

on the island or the disposition of any lands, they need not

subject themselves to any examination by the trustees.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Point of order. I

believe this amendment is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ruling on the point of order, I would say the

point of order is well taken.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, why is it well taken, Mr. Chairman?

We've been having a debate here. The Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) has spoken; the Minister has refused it,

not raising a point of order. The Minister said, "It's out of

order." Well, on what basis?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated

while I make the comment necessary. Unfortunately, the

amendment was given to us without notice and we've been looking

through the authorities in order to establish the basis on

[ Page 3461 ]

which it should be either in or out of order. We have now

done that.

The particular amendment is one which takes away some power

from the Crown or restricts the power of the Crown in some way.

Therefore, an amendment in this House that would do that must

be introduced by a Member of the cabinet. I would refer to the

Speaker's decision, November 24, 1939, when Mr. N.W. Whittaker

was Speaker, in which he ruled that any amendment, bill or a

motion which impinges upon Crown prerogatives must be

introduced only with the consent of a Member of the Crown, or

by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Member who

introduced this bill, clearly anticipating the problem you have

indicated, took great pains to point out that he in no way

intended to alter or change or impinge upon the privileges of

the Crown. He took some time to explain to us that he was

talking only of Crown agencies and that the Crown itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: We never heard that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …would remain intact. Its privileges,

its immunities, its benefits — God knows what else — would

remain intact, but Crown agencies such as B.C. Hydro, such as

B.C. Ferry Authority, which, as my hon. friend from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out, is the

largest single employer on Saltspring Island, would be bound by

the provisions of the Act.

Therefore, I think the ruling given by you, with deference,

Mr. Chairman, failed to take into account that there was in the

statement made by the Member a specific exemption of the Crown

and a reference only to Crown agencies.

There is an enormous amount of precedent in the area of what

constitutes government agencies and what government and state

corporations constitute the state. This is mostly to do with

international law when you're dealing with shipping companies

owned by governments. There are thousands of cases of precedent

in this area and they all tend towards the argument that the

Crown itself is not the agency and there is a distinction.

In a situation such as this, the amendment would be

certainly in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would refer to the amendment as submitted words. The

motion is "To amend

section 6(4) by deleting all of the words after the word

'unless' in the third line and substituting the words: 'the Crown first gives

notice of the development or disposition…."' It would appear from the

wording that this is some action of the Crown and therefore the amendment then

impinges upon….

MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. You haven't read

it carefully. I recited the subsection as it appears in the Act

to help you in making your ruling. It does not change until we

get to the words "…and, in the case of a Crown Agency,

first receives…." I've taken the earlier wording

precisely from the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continuing on the point of order, my

interpretation of the amendment would be that this does, in

fact, in some way bind the Crown, whether it's the Crown itself

or a Crown agency.

I would request that, unless the Hon. Member can provide

evidence to the contrary, then the ruling will stand. It is

something which requires the Crown's action; therefore, any

amendment coming from a private Member would…. The point is,

if the Hon. Member can produce evidence that binding a Crown

agency does not in some way bind the Crown, then we would

reconsider. However, my ruling is that it does, in fact, bind

the Crown even though it is the Crown agency. Therefore, I

would rule the amendment out of order.

MR. CURTIS: Then I must challenge your ruling, Mr.

Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee an amendment

was introduced by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis). I ruled that this amendment was out of order on

the grounds that it impinged upon Crown prerogatives. My ruling

was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, The question before

the House is whether the Chairman's ruling shall be

sustained.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 28

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Young

Nicolson

Skelly

Cocke

King

Lea

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[ Page 3462 ]

NAYS — 13

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

The House in committee on Bill 112; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the ruling just upheld by

the House — your ruling — was that somehow or another the

Crown's rights, privileges, et cetera, could be affected by the

amendment in question. While we argue the point, we accept the

ruling of the whole House.

Therefore I would like to put an amendment which would

simply delete the words: "or an agency of the Crown as defined

in the Public Service Labour Relations Act ." This in no

way could affect the Crown because the Crown, after all, is not

a Crown agency, and vice versa. It would, indeed, give

protection for the islands and the islanders, as talked about

so glowingly under

section 3(l), "objects of the trust,"

and I would like to put an amendment on which you can consult

with the Law Clerk as to whether or not it is in order. I'm

sure it is, because there is a distinction between the Crown in

right of British Columbia and an agency of the Crown.

The reason why it is necessary is precisely the same reason

for which the previous amendment had merit, and that is that we

are now setting up a situation in which in cases where the

Crown agencies themselves take steps to do something which is

contrary, and only in cases where it is contrary to the objects

of the Act, they will be permitted to act regardless of this

island trust, regardless of the trustees, regardless of the

wishes of the local inhabitants, because, Mr. Chairman, as you

know, in cases where they are acting in accordance with the

objectives of the trust they would automatically get

permission.

This joker clause here in

section 6(4) which the government

inserted is simply to exempt them in cases where they are

acting contrary to the objectives of the trust. That is all it

is for, and that is why we think not only the Crown agencies

but also the Crown should be bound by this Act and that this

subsection (4) should be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Before the Hon. Member continues I would make a

ruling on whether the amendment is in order or not in order. I would rule it

out of order on the same grounds as the previous amendment, and that is that

leaving the words in would give something to the agency of the Crown which,

in turn, gives something, retains certain powers for the Crown. Taking the words

out, then, would take this away, which again would impinge upon the prerogatives

of the Crown. Therefore I rule this amendment out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I

think the distinction has not been properly made between the

Crown agency and the Crown itself. To extend your argument one

step further — and I think I have to do that so that I can show

you where the failure of logic is — would be to say that we,

for example, could not put in amendments affecting British

Columbia Telephone because, of course, the government owns

shares, and if you affect the company you'll affect the

government's financial position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows

the rules of the House. He knows that a ruling is a ruling and

the only thing he may do is challenge it. He may not debate

it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would hate to think that

you, a man of good will, would take such a narrow

interpretation of the rules. You're a man who is open to

persuasion by logic, you're a man who….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've allowed the Hon. Member

some latitude already, but I must follow the rules of the House

in committee, and therefore I rule this amendment out of order.

The Member has only one recourse and that is to challenge the

ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, may I have a definitive

statement of yours then on the whole question of whether or

not, when questions of doubt arise as to the

interpretation of

our rules or

interpretations such as this, you yourself will

not listen to arguments from either side of the House before

making a definitive judgment?

We're arriving at a situation where perhaps, Mr. Chairman,

you are basing your decision on good advice and your own good

judgment. However, it's just possible that somewhere in the

other 54 Members of the House there are one or two little

grains of wisdom which might affect your mind, and you're a man

who's known to be willing to change his mind if it's shown he's

wrong.

What I would like to know from you on this point of order is

at what point your decision becomes such a binding one that the

only alternative is not to appeal to your logic but to appeal

to the illogical government majority that supports you. It's an

important point to the opposition.

[ Page 3463 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're getting into a prolonged

debate. The Chair has been lenient on this point because it is

a new point, certainly, in our experience here in this

particular Legislature. However, having listened to some of the

arguments previously that were presented and having consulted

some of the authorities, I have made a ruling.

I ruled the previous amendment out of order, and it was

upheld by the House. I ruled this amendment out because the

impact is the same, and that is that it takes something away

from this particular bill which is, in effect, taking something

away from an agency of the Crown and from the Crown itself.

Therefore I have ruled it out of order. The Hon. Member may

challenge the ruling, but we should not continue this

debate.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, just to clear that up, does that mean that

any amendment which would remove something from a government

bill is taking away from a government prerogative?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Each amendment is considered by itself,

separately, when it is proposed. However, in this case I've

ruled that the particular force of the amendment would take

something away from a Crown agency and through that from the

Crown, and therefore impinges upon Crown prerogatives.

Therefore any such amendment must be introduced with the

consent of the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

The Hon. Member in

section 6 can debate the matter in a

general way, but he cannot propose an amendment. An amendment

of this particular nature must be introduced by the consent of

the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, during

your remarks a few moments ago you indicated that, based upon

authority, you were holding that a Crown agency was identical

with the Crown. I wonder if you would be good enough to advise

the committee of your authority for that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made the ruling that in

my judgment impinging upon a Crown agency is impinging upon the

Crown in legislation. Therefore such an amendment must be

introduced by the consent of the Crown. However, I asked the

Hon. Member at that time to produce evidence to the contrary or

an authority to the contrary. This was not done. Therefore I

sustained my own ruling; I've held up my own ruling.

(Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, then, Mr. Chairman, you're saying

that if you say it is right everybody has to prove you're wrong. You don't listen

to any arguments on either side to either sustain you or reverse you except

the ruling of the majority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm very satisfied with my own judgment in

this case. Would the Hon. Members continue with the debate on

section 6?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, what you're

saying, I gather, is: "Don't confuse me with the facts — my

mind's made up."

MR. WALLACE: On

section 6, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to try

again. Perhaps I can't achieve what we attempted initially, but

the issue that is involved in

section 6 is the double standard

I mentioned of individuals living on the islands, paying taxes

on the islands, being subject to a level of jurisdiction which

no other part of this province is subject to.

It should be made very, very clear, that this is a level of

authority under provincial government direction which is being

applied to the citizens of the islands in a way which does not

apply anywhere else in British Columbia. We've got local

government, we've regional government, provincial government,

federal government. But as far as the Gulf Islands are

concerned, this legislation inserts another level of government

authority. I don't know if we're getting that point across or

not.

As such, the islanders are being controlled and restricted,

albeit with good motives, by government. But in

section 4(4) a

different set of ground rules are being applied to any kind of

government or Crown agency or Crown corporation or

what-have-you.

I've tried to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that many, many

developments in other parts of this province show that Crown

agencies are not to be trusted as far as environmental

concerns, consultation with the public and so on. There are

endless examples to show that when you're dealing with the

Ferry Authority or B.C. Hydro or such agencies of government,

in fact, despite all the promises that one can receive

verbally, when the chips are down these agencies tend to go the

way they want to.

I think of some of the instances I've quoted in this House

in previous debates where bulldozers turn up on somebody's land

and start tearing apart the countryside. We've talked in

various ways about expropriation and other similar actions of

government in the name of the Crown or on behalf of a Crown

corporation.

All we're trying to say in trying to amend this section, Mr.

Chairman, is to say that what is good for the citizens, the

individual in the name of the good future of the islands should

be good for the government and good for the Crown and any arm

or agency of the Crown.

[ Page 3464 ]

It's obvious that we can't amend this the way we would like

to, but I would like to at least introduce an amendment which

I'm sure is in order, Mr. Chairman, which limits the thrust of

our original amendment but at least goes part way. I would like

to suggest the following amendment to subsection (4) to add

after the last word, "trustees": "and secondly takes

part in at

least one meeting with the trustees to discuss the proposed

development or disposition of land."

I await your ruling regarding the amendment being in

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, could I have your

assurance that the amendment is in order? We debated it for 10

minutes last time and then were told it wasn't in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order raised by

the Hon. Member for Oak Bay as to whether his amendment is in

order, I must regretfully rule that it is not in order because

it does in fact again bind the Crown to a course of action.

Such an amendment must be either introduced by the consent of

the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. CURTIS: Are you continuing to accept debate on

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, on

section 6.

MR. CURTIS: I think it's significant, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

sure that the people of the Gulf Islands and the people of

British Columbia will see and recognize very clearly the

government's and the Minister's inflexibility on this bad bill.

There are 21 individual recommendations put together by a

consensus, a meeting of electoral area-regional district

directors who studied the bill very closely, 21 individual

recommendations as to how to improve the bill, and they have

been ignored. One happened to coincide with an amendment

standing in the name of the Minister to delete a

section which

will come a little further along.

That is some concession to the people of the Gulf Islands

and some indications of this government's inflexibility and

arrogance in power after just 20 months!

I fear very much one of the dangers of this trust, a year

from now, five years from now — whenever it may occur — is that….

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, we are having a debate in principle all over again. I

thought we were on

section 6(4), as I understand it, not debate

in principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the Hon. Member is, I

believe, confining his remarks to this section. Therefore, I

would rule his remarks in order to this point, providing they

are relevant to

section 6.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about

section 6 and

pointing out that this is the heart of the bill. This is land

use. This is what will be permitted and what will not be

permitted. That is why the government's refusal to accept the

earlier amendments is so regrettable.

A few years from now, after the trust has been established

and operating for quite some time, there is a very grave danger

that it will become a little empire unto itself in matters

affecting land use. No question about it. And it may cease to

communicate with Crown agencies, regional districts and

municipalities if they are established; and in this context I

mean a village or town which may be established in one of the

Gulf Islands. That would be extremely regrettable.

This trust will have to maintain open and easy contact with

all levels of government, with Crown agencies, with citizen

groups on the islands and with ratepayers' organizations in

order to function effectively and in the best interests not

only of the Gulf Islands, but of British Columbia as a whole.

Well-handled, this could be very well done; it could be most

effective. But badly handled, in isolation, with its gears

closed after a number of years have passed, I'm afraid it will

be something of a law unto itself.

For that reason I propose an amendment to this

section which

would add a new subsection (7), Mr. Chairman. It takes nothing

away from the

section as presently drawn, but a new subsection

(7) would say — and I trust this does not interfere with the

Crown: "Not later than January 15, 1975, and at six-month

intervals thereafter, the chairman of the general trustees

shall convene a meeting of all general trustees, local trustees

and regional district electoral area directors who represent

all islands within the trust area as may from time to time be

established, for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the

trust and making recommendations to the general trustees with

regard to future activities." I so move, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule the amendment in order.

MR. WALLACE: It's obvious we are making some progress around

here. In speaking to the amendment. I think its phraseology

speaks for itself. We are concerned that even with the best

motives a general trusteeship of three members, appointed by

government, despite the promises and good intentions of the

Minister to consult and discuss with all parties

[ Page 3465 ]

concerned, could in fact, within the outlines of

section 6,

fail indeed to maintain the kind of close cooperation and

contact not only with the citizens on the island but, more

importantly, their elected representatives and the people

chosen as the local trustees in this case.

The Minister's inflexibility already this afternoon and his

unwillingness to acknowledge that the Crown wants some

privileged position in the way it dictates what might or might

not be done with land under control of the Crown gives us very

little confidence that the kind of consultations and

cooperation which is so essential to the success of the work

of this trust will take place.

We've already referred in this House to this particular

Minister's attitude in certain other meetings and transit

discussions where, in fact, he took a very authoritarian

approach. We are very uneasy in this party that if that same

kind of attitude is allowed to prevail through the vehicle of

this trust without the kind of safeguards that we are trying to

build into this bill by the amendments, there will indeed be

far too much power and responsibility in the hands of the

trustees, which may well act to the detriment not only of the

development of the islands but to some of the rights and

privileges of the individuals citizens when they want to have a

real voice in discussing and expressing their own opinions

about future development.

I see no reason why a meeting involving the people mentioned

in the amendment every six months isn't just an eminently fair

and reasonable safeguard that an adequate flow of information

will occur in three directions involving the Minister's

department, the trustees and the citizens who live on the

island.

I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is in the

House now, Mr. Chairman, because he is the expert on letting

sunshine in. We are only suggesting that the kind of open

government which this party in power espoused on the hustings

they now have an excellent opportunity to show and practise in

legislation and in a spirit of cooperation by accepting an

opposition amendment. It has been done — not very often? but it

gets done occasionally.

Here we have an opportunity for the Minister to show that he

not only promises verbally that appropriate discussions will

take place. We've simply written in a little subsection here

which guarantees the citizens and the elected officials on the

island access to the general trustees and through them to the

Minister. I hope that the Minister can accept this

amendment.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this amendment, I

think it has been well covered for those islands which will have elected representatives

on the board. But I would like to speak also for those islands which will not

have any elected representatives on the board. I would like to specifically

speak about Mudge Island, which I don't believe will have enough members to

have elected representatives on the board. One of the items that we have been

mentioning here regularly is the fact that Mudge Island will become a freeway

with two bridges for that ultimate ferry. Those people will not have any access

to anyone to complain.

This amendment at least gives them the privilege of hearing

at least once every six months what the proposals are and

having a right of input. It is obvious to me from the debate

that has gone on this afternoon that this government has no

intention of giving those people on the islands the right to

say where the future of their islands will go.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm quite surprised at this debate going

on the way it is. At the present time to say that the islanders

don't have a say in their future, as the Hon. Member for

Victoria just said, is absolute nonsense. At the present time

they have no say in anything on these particular islands. In

the Capital Regional District here they have two votes out of

47….

MR. MORRISON: They still have the right to go to court.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as the islands that are not

designated as populated islands are concerned, they still have

the three appointed trustees who will discuss the questions

with them and take their views to whatever area they have to

go.

I'm suggesting that the Tory group are certainly doing all

they can to defeat the intent of this bill, not only in the

frivolous amendment they are bringing out here but by visiting

the islands and — from my information from having followed in

his footsteps — giving certain

interpretations to this bill

which I feel are not quite accurate, according to the stories I

received when I was on Saltspring Island.

MR. CURTIS: Point of order. I would like the Minister to be

more specific and substantiate the inference that I was giving

reports that were less than accurate with respect to this bill.

The Minister knows full well that I opened the meetings to

which he has referred by reading the bill and then, as I

indicated the other day, by reading the NDP caucus

newsletter.

I was complimented on a number of occasions by individuals

who felt that it was an extremely fair meeting in each case. I

think the Minister should either put up or shut up in something

such as this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What has happened in the past has been

that departments and Crown agencies

[ Page 3466 ]

have gone into the islands on their own and done whatever

particular job they had been intending to do.

section 6(4)

gives the power to the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the

Minister, with respect, to retract or substantiate, if he can,

the inference that I was misleading or giving wrong information

in the meetings which I attended over the past few weeks. One

way or the other; put up or shut up is perhaps a crude way of

expressing it, but a substantiation or a retraction,

please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the Hon.

Member may request that the Minister clarify his remarks, and I

would ask the Hon. Minister to continue.

HON. MR. LORIMER: If the Member had requested me to withdraw

the first time he had spoken, I would have withdrawn the

statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know you're wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, that is not correct. But I'm

withdrawing the statement that I said that I didn't agree with

his

interpretations of the Act.

Now, the other point I was going to raise was the question

of the necessity under this

section for the Crown agencies and

the different departments of government to notify the trust

before any action is taken, in order that the trust will now be

able to be familiar with what are the intentions and can

correlate the activities or have them reviewed, or whatever the

trust may decide should be done.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'd just like to make an

observation, Mr. Chairman, that this

section we're dealing with

says that Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro must notify the

trust, but you know, I can imagine that's all that will

happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're dealing with the

amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Very, very briefly, Mr. Chairman — certainly we will support it. The whole legislation is

predicated upon the overriding power of the general trustees,

and all that this amendment does is make it obligatory that

general trustees at least every six months meet with local

trustees and the regional district representatives to review

the work they have done and to consider the future course.

The people of the islands should well recognize t hat the general trustees

appointed by this government are not in any way responsible to do anything that

will be satisfactory to people on the islands, yet the-local trustees who are

elected by the residents, the regional district representatives from the electoral

areas who are elected by the residents, must have a right to meet with those

general trustees and make sure that the course of the trust is being properly

carried out.

This is all that this amendment does — ensure that the

general trustees, appointees of the government, will in fact in

carrying out their responsibilities meet with and be

responsible to those people who are elected by the island

residents.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 29

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, when you report to Mr. Speaker,

would you inform him that a division took place on

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

MR. CURTIS: I ask that it be recorded in the Journals .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I just wish to speak once more about

section 6 and the double standard that it implies. If the

Members of the committee will look very carefully at the first

subsection of

section 6, you will notice that if a

municipality, a duly elected local government in this province

takes any action which may affect any of the areas within the

island trust, that those actions can only be taken if they

first of all get the approval of the cabinet and the trustees.

The municipality must get approval from both bodies. In effect,

subsection (1) provides that, so far as action

[ Page 3467 ]

by municipalities is concerned, the trustees are indeed able

to overrule the cabinet, because if the cabinet approves what

the municipality wishes to do, but the trustees do not, then

the municipality cannot proceed under the first subsection of

section 6.

Therefore, it clearly indicates the great concern which the

government has with regard to activities which may affect the

unique amenities and the environment of the lands within the

island trust. That's what makes this double standard so

difficult for me to accept — the double standard which is made

clear by subsection (4) — because when it comes to an agency of

the Crown, the agency of the Crown need seek approval from no

one, neither from the cabinet, nor from the island trust. All

they do is given notice.

When the people on the other Gulf Islands within the trust

area, concerned as they are about their unique islands and the

environment in which they live, also consider the classic cases

of bad corporate citizenship which we have seen from our Crown

corporations, they will have good reason to question the

sincerity of the government in bringing forth this legislation

in this particular form.

In other areas of the province affected by Crown

corporations — I speak specifically of B.C. Hydro and B.C.

Rail, I speak of those unique areas in my constituency to which

the rights-of-way of those two Crown corporations pass — when I

consider what they have done in taking land, in indiscriminate

spraying of rights-of-way which has resulted in the killing of

foliage, wildlife and fish, I seriously question how the

government could allow Crown corporations to deal with these

islands without having the approval of the trust itself.

It means that those Crown corporations and the other

emanations of the Crown for which this government is now so

famous can deal with the designated islands merely by giving

notice. There is no obligation to discuss. There is no

obligation to disclose their plans. There is no obligation to

seek approval, even from the three trustees which the

government itself may appoint.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister could have cured this. He could

have cured it by accepting any of the amendments to subsection

(4) which have already been discussed. His refusal to do so

obliged me to oppose the section.

Section 6 approved.

Section 7 approved.

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

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: 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 112, Islands Trust Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill

8 1.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment

Act, 1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 129.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 129; Mr. Liden in

[ Page

3468 ]

the chair.

section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in the debate on second

reading of this bill, containing only one section, I raised

with the Minister the question dealing with the conditions

under which he anticipates that principal and interest might be

rebated, or indeed that there be grants in retrospect because

it includes the right to rebate principal and interest which

has in fact already been paid. I mentioned this in second

reading and I would be pleased if the Minister could indicate,

the experience that the department has had which would

encourage this significant amendment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we made it clear, I think,

in announcements to this date and in the amendment before us

that we intend to go the guarantee route rather than the direct

lending, although not necessarily totally. Certainly there will

be more emphasis on the guarantee route. Going the guarantee

route means that borrowers, of course, will have to pay the

going rate of interest or whatever rate of interest we are able

to negotiate on behalf of a borrower, by talking to the lending

institutions as we have been doing. I hope this week to be able

to announce that this programme will be in place by the end of

the week.

Having decided that, then the question of discounts of

interest or principal becomes available to us. One of the

reasons for this is that we want to be able to encourage

agricultural development in some areas of the province where

there may be some element of risk that operators would not be

prepared to undertake the sort of agricultural programmes that

we would like to see encouraged in those areas, or perhaps

where they feel that it's worth gambling, for example, on grain

production in the Peace River where it might be to the

community's advantage to persuade them to grow other crops,

perhaps crops that they haven't heretofore grown, or to

encourage forest production in areas where it is not currently

going on. But because of the high price of grain, the producers

are more inclined to take a chance on the weather and try for

grain crops. But more, it is to encourage producers to produce

products in certain areas of the province where they haven't

done it previously than for the other purposes, I would

think.

Beyond that, as the Member said in raising the question, it

would also allow us to actually affect the net interest that a

borrower is paying. I can't say yet because the programme isn't

definitely in place, but when it is in place it is possible

that it could even be used to control the net interest that a

borrower is paying for this particular programme.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 129, Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 77.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to

introduce this bill for second reading because it will assist,

we believe, the total community.

It assists the debtor; it will assist the creditors; it will

assist society inasmuch as it may prevent debtors ending up

requiring the assistance of the total community; and it will

assist the courts that have long been overburdened by having to

adjudicate the problems between debtors and creditors.

This bill is the result of a study done on behalf of the

Judges' Small Claims Committee, headed by Chief Justice Brahan

of the provincial court. I'd like to quote from that

report:

"The role of the Judges' Small Claims Committee has been to

meet periodically to discuss general issues affecting the

operations of the courts, and the small claims court in

particular. One issue raised was the general problem of the

workload of the entire court system. In particular, the

problems centred on the small debts claims coming before the

court which were not in dispute but rather which presented

difficulty for the defendant to pay or arrange settlement

upon.

"A proposed solution to this unnecessary back logging was the

initiation of a referee system of arbitrating terms of

repayment to the satisfaction of both debtor and creditor. This

system would not supplant the court process, but would provide

a less formal setting in which the situation of the debtor and

creditor could be examined in detail and a resolution brought

forward to be recommended to the courts."

Essentially, that is what this bill proposes to do — assist

the courts. An outside party would bring the debtor and the

creditor together, would be able to make arrangements for a

satisfactory debt resolution,

[ Page 3469 ]

and would then offer the recommendations to the court. The

court then could base its decision on the recommendations of

the referee or not, as the court saw fit. But it would relieve

the court of having to do this basic bookkeeping type of work

itself.

The Act goes further in that we feel that there is a further

need for counselling, for debt advisement. It is one thing to

settle a problem, a debtor's problem; it is one thing to be

able to satisfy the creditors and assist the creditors to get

the full amount of their money rather than have the debtor go

into personal bankruptcy with perhaps his creditor getting only

half of his money; but it is another to make sure that the

debtor does not get into debt again.

In studies in Alberta it's been shown that 88 per cent of

the people coming before the debtors' assistance board there

had no idea of how to keep a budget. Our legislation would

assist debtors to set up a budget system. It would assist a

debtor in counselling him so that he would not get into these

situations again.

Ours is a society that pushes credit as a way of life, as

the way to the good life. We are constantly being bombarded by

advertisements telling us: "Fly now — pay later….No money

down, easy credit terms." And right around Christmas time you

get the one that says: "Purchase now — no payment for 90 days."

They neglect to tell you that you must pay interest charges for

those 90 days that you are not making payments.

Our Act has been based on the experience of the Province of

Alberta where they have had similar legislation for over 50

years — and, in its present form, for about 31 years. They have

been very, very successful in Alberta with their debtors'

assistance board.

In 1958, the City of Toronto instituted a similar referee

system. The courts requested it there, and Mr. Scott is the

referee there. He has been operating the service since 1958. He

handles for metro Toronto approximately 7,000 cases a year, and

very successfully.

Alberta's experience has been that their caseload for their

population size is around 7,000 cases a year.

In Vancouver alone 12,000 cases came before the small debts

court. It appears, based on statistics provided by Alberta and

Toronto, that about one-third of all cases coming before small

claims court are debtor-creditor cases dealing with these very

deep problems of debt involvement. So we can safely assume that

in Vancouver, in that population size, at least 4,000 cases

alone dealt with these problems.

This is why we feel that this is a necessary Act. It is designed to assist

the community because of the fact that a debtor who is able to receive an extension

of time and receive some debt counselling on how not to get into debt will be

an asset to society. He will not, perhaps, lose his job because of his wages

being garnisheed, nor will he end up on social assistance rolls.

I think the statistics that have been shown by Statistics

Canada will bring home to us the amount of mortgaging of the

future that Canadians do. As of January 1, 1974, over $17

billion was outstanding in consumer credit in Canada. This did

not include mortgages owing. That was about $850 for each man,

woman and child in Canada or, roughly, about $1,300 per adult

Canadian. Now that's quite a debt load to be carrying.

We don't know how many families are broken apart through

severe financial problems. We don't know how many jobs, homes,

cars, furniture, appliances have been lost, nor the money that

could have been saved by our communities because of bankruptcy,

garnishments or collection of delinquent accounts. We don't

know about the absenteeism from work due to money worries, and

even crime arising from it.

There are no statistics for these things. But they do

represent a cost to the taxpayers and to the consumer in having

credit losses passed on to them in their purchases from retail

outlets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Just a few brief

comments in passing. I appreciated the words from the Minister

about what she plans to do and hopes this bill will do.

I would suggest that she has in her department the power to

go into the educational system. We've discussed this before. I

think that a little course somewhere at the high school level

on business management and what rights a person has who

incurred a debt — teaching them about small debts court,

teaching them about interest, teaching them about contracts and

their obligations — would be a very good course to have at the

high school level.

I think that if we had some education along these lines

before people get out into the world themselves and get taken

by a lot of these gimmicky salesmen and so forth, why, we

wouldn't have this problem.

I've found in business myself that where a person who gets

in debt is willing to pay, we have never, never…. Our policy

is that we would never push them. But I find that 90 per cent

of the time people who don't pay their debts are people who

really don't intend to pay their debts. Either they're that

type of person who are trying to go around creating debts with

the intention of never paying them, or they get in so far that

they can't pay them.

But where the problem is, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, through

you to the Minister, is that a tremendous number of very small

businesses — I'm talking about corner grocery stores, service

stations, local body shops, people who employ, oh, say, five or

six people….

[ Page 3470 ]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous number of these small

businesses go broke each year. The main reason they go broke is

because they have allowed people to get into debt. Perhaps they

are not that experienced in business; maybe they don't bother

checking out credit ratings because they know the person but

don't know his full financial background. So that person gets

into debt to them.

As a small business they then in turn have financial

difficulties because they can't collect their debts from the

individual people.

I really feel that you may want to consider this, Mr.

Speaker, and maybe the Minister would comment on this in

closing the debate.

Maybe she would consider extending this bill to include

small businesses employing up to,, say, 10 people. The majority

of them are just starting out on their own; they haven't had

that much business experience. They are maybe not as tough on

credit as they should be, so they allow themselves to get into

debt. Then it becomes a court case between their major supplier

and them as a small businessman.

But I'll admit that it all goes back to the individual. This

is the biggest reason why small businesses go broke: it's

because of extended credit and lack of operating capital. The

extended credit is mostly to individuals who have gotten in too

far and they have been too lenient.

These are two suggestions that I wish you would maybe

consider and comment on: first, that an educational course,

even if it was short, in the schools be made available — it

wouldn't have to be mandatory — for people to take advantage of

knowing what their rights and what their obligations are in our

"debt society," as you call it; secondly, having

available to small businesses of up to 10 employees through

your commission the ability to go and get some education

themselves on maybe how to run their business and what their

rights and obligations are under our debt system.

If it works, as the Minister says, it will certainly be of

assistance to both the debtor and the creditor.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) brought up some very worthwhile points. We have a

community programme director who will be preparing kits for the

schools on debt and credit. Our counsellors will also be

available to speak to schools on this subject.

It is generally conceded by educators that when people are

motivated they learn. Speaking to some educators on this

subject, they found that as soon as somebody had a credit card

or was purchasing a car on time payments, they became very,

very interested in interest rates and how much they were really

paying and so on. It began to mean something to them.

When you are in secondary school, interest rates and all that are pretty dull.

But once you get involved in the real world, even at the high school level,

then all these things begin to mean something to you. But we are definitely

planning educational programmes for the schools.

With regard to the small businessman who extends credit, I

appreciate the Member's concern. This is precisely what we are

trying to do: by providing a counselling service to these

people we can avoid bankruptcy — personal bankruptcy — of that

individual — in other words, that individual person who may not

be paying his bills. Because very often they will take the

bankruptcy route to get out of their troubles. This way, by

providing the counselling and assistance, we can get 100 cents

on the dollar for the creditor rather than 10 cents, 20 cents

or 50 cents, which is normal in bankruptcy procedures.

It is interesting to note the reaction of the

credit-granting community to our legislation. We have not

received one adverse comment from anyone in the industry. Quite

the contrary, they all seem to be pleased with it. As a matter

of fact, we have had over 50 people employed in the

credit-granting industry apply for positions in this particular

department when and if, at the pleasure of the Legislature, it

is established.

I now move second reading of Bill 77, Debtor Assistance

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 77, Debtor Assistance Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Second

reading of Bill 126, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Before speaking to the principle of this

bill, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be helpful for the Hon.

Members if I gave them a history of its evolution.

In June of last year a two-day conference on consumer

affairs was called by the Hon. Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald). As the recently appointed Minister Without

Portfolio responsible for consumer affairs, I was asked to act

as co-host.

Among the participants were representatives from the

Vancouver Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Association of

Canada, the Consumer Action League, the Vancouver Community

Legal Assistance Society, the Legal Aid Society, the Vancouver

Province 's "Action Line," CBC's consumer specialist, the

B.C. Central Credit Union and others — in all, about 22

people.

Mr. William Neilson was the keynote speaker and

[ Page 3471 ]

catalyst. At the end of the second day it was agreed by all

that the conference had been a thundering success. A consensus

was reached on what form the proposed Department of Consumer

Services should take and the kind of legislation necessary to

help consumers in the new marketplace of the 1970s.

Heretofore it had been customary to enact legislation to

prohibit one or two deceptive practices — usually long after

the fact. As a result we have on the books a long list of Acts,

each dealing with one specific practice. These have

traditionally been written and enacted after many people have

lost a great deal of money and suffered personal hardship, from

which many may never recover.

All of the conferees felt that it was necessary to design

legislation to stop a deceptive practice before it started

rather than wait for the practice to happen and then move to

outlaw it.

The bill we have before us is a direct result of that

consensus. Many of the deceptive practices listed were

specifically requested by the participants of that conference

and unanimously agreed to. The means to deal with violations

were thoroughly thrashed out so that both consumers and

business people would have their rights fully protected.

Additional input to the bill came from various trade and

industry associations. In all cases the reputable business

firms recognized that they were at a distinct disadvantage in

competition when the disreputable members of their respective

industries used underhanded and devious methods to sell their

goods and services.

An excellent example of this was the $9 TV rental scheme

that Mr. Vince Forbes of the Vancouver Better Business Bureau

exposed so well. One of the oldest and most reputable TV and

radio retailers in Vancouver asked us what we could do to stop

this scheme. We were forced to reply that although we

recognized that the practice was deceitful, unethical, and

immoral, under existing law it was not illegal.

Indeed, it is a sad commentary on the existing state of the

consumer protection legislation which we inherited from the

previous administration that the bait-and-switch operation is

not illegal in this province. Perhaps this is one of the few

remaining jurisdictions in the western world where it is not.

All of this is in spite of the notorious $10.95 reconditioned

vacuum cleaner gimmick of 20 years ago that fleeced thousand of

British Columbians. Variations on this theme have flourished

with equanimity ever since and are flourishing to this day.

In drafting this bill we examined consumer legislation in

the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, taking

from each those features that best suited the problems

confronting us in British Columbia. To these we added the

recommendations of the conference held in June and the

suggestions of the various trade associations.

Over the months, I and spokesman from my department have

indicated in rather specific detail the direction we were going

in and received support for our proposals from all segments of

society.

Our Act was the first of its kind in Canada for one day. The

day after it was introduced in our Legislature, the Government

of Ontario introduced a similar Act in their Legislature.

At the recent inter-provincial conference of Consumer

Affairs Ministers held in Jasper, Alberta, the pivotal point of

interest was the two respective Acts. It was generally conceded

that B.C. had presented the best and most balanced Act of all.

And several provinces have indicated that they will be

introducing similar legislation in the near future.

They particularly liked the shopping list of deceptive

practices, the guidance to the courts as to what constitutes an

unconscionable act — a decision that courts have heretofore

been reluctant to adjudicate, and rightfully so. Previous

consumer and contract law gave power to the courts to avoid

harsh and unconscionable agreements. The courts felt that they

were being asked to do the work of the legislature by

determining what was harsh and unconscionable. That work, and

that definition properly belonged to the law makers, not the

law interpreters.

The bill outlines in extensive detail what constitutes a

deceptive and unconscionable practice. It provides immediate

remedy by giving the director of trade practices the right,

upon reasonable grounds, to investigate the situation and to

take one of several actions.

First of all, he can attempt a mediation between the two

par-ties. Frequently disputes arise from a lack of

communications between consumer and supplier, and a neutral

ground upon which they can communicate. We estimate that 95 per

cent of our cases will be solved through these means, through

simple mediation.

Secondly, he can, if it appears that the supplier is in

clear violation of the Act, ask the supplier to make full

restitution of lost moneys, and sign an agreement of voluntary

compliance to abide by the Act. The matter ends there if all

parties are satisfied.

If, however, the supplier refuses to conform to the

provisions of the Act, the director can then ask the courts to

adjudicate the matter. The Act gives the right to consumers to

pursue a complaint on their own. It also permits them to do so

on behalf of other consumers similarly affected.

It even allows for a third party to take an action on behalf

of a consumer or a class of consumers. However, the recovery

from any such action is limited to the recovery of moneys lost,

and not damages. The director has the same right to take action

on behalf of a consumer or class of consumers.

We are saying that we will, for a change, help the

[ Page 3472 ]

consumer; we will go to court for him; we will go to bat for

him on his behalf. We feel that this legislation will right the

balance in the marketplace of today.

It is an interesting sociological note that at the recent

Consumer Ministers Conference the province that was the

farthest behind in consumer protection legislation in all of

Canada should bring forward the most advanced and progressive

remedies.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, better late than never. Thank

you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a few comments. I don't think anyone who

is a reputable businessman would ever speak against this bill,

certainly not. Anything that's brought in that protects the

reputable businessman, which this Act will do, should be

welcome.

However, I think we should have a companion Act, and it

should be known as the government practices Act — to protect

the people against the government doing things that they don't

want them to do.

In the last 18 months, Mr. Speaker, this government has done

things that nobody wants done, so we should have a bill which

would protect the people of this province against this

government.

This government, for instance, has taken away the right of a

person to buy his automobile insurance where he wants. The

government has demanded that he buy, for instance, collision

insurance on a certain year automobile.

Now, if we had a bill which is known as the government

practices Act, we could have written into that bill clauses

which would prevent and make it against the law for that

government to do some of the things they have done.

For instance, we could have a tenet in there — in this new

government bill I'm talking about, this new government

practices Act — which would prevent the government from killing

the mining industry. We could also have certain tenets written

into the Act which would protect the forestry against

government takeover.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Hon. Member, I'm sure

there are many things that could be put in any bill before the

House. What we are concerned with is the principle of the bill

that is before us, and not what you want to introduce into

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just drawing a parallel line, Mr. Speaker,

that if we're going to protect the individual against the

businessman then we should also protect the individual against

the government.

There are certain civic governments which are having their rights taken away

from them. We just passed a bill here this afternoon that completely takes away

the rights of a certain civic government here on the lower mainland. So, if

the government is going to be so conscionable about protecting the individual,

well, they should also be conscionable about protecting the individual against

practices by the government which harm that individual. That's what I'm trying

to point out, Mr. Speaker. And I know you think it would be an excellent idea

also. I can see by the way you're nodding your head that you think it would

be a good idea.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just sleepy.

MR. PHILLIPS: In today's world, Mr. Speaker, we need to

protect the individual from certain trade practices, and we

need to protect the individual from certain government

practices, and that is going to be a greater cry. Maybe next

year we'll have to bring in a new Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is very fundamental

legislation for the Minister's department, and I think that

fair merchants and fair consumers will, by and large, welcome

the legislation.

No doubt over the coming year or so, defects and problems

will turn up here and there in the drafting and amendments of

this kind may be required. Hopefully the Minister will keep an

open mind on this over the forthcoming year.

I would suggest, as well, to her that the manner of

enforcement and the personality of the person appointed as

director will be very important to the introduction and success

of this Act.

I congratulate her on the investigating ability of the

director and his ability to go through the process of

mediation, and share her hope that indeed 95 per cent of the

complaints will be solved at that level.

The ability of the consumer to have recourse to the small

claim court, I think, is a good provision of the bill. And the

general recourse to the courts is a good provision of the

bill The government is not always a favourite of the Financial

Post , but in the Financial Post of May 18 in their

lead editorial they had to say the following:

"The legislative rush to invest boards, commissions, and Ministers with broad authority, over whose

decision there is no appeal, has been a feature of government

in Canada in recent years. But in the midst of this bleak

progress towards the no man's land of arbitrary decision, a

faint ray of light has poked through.

"Last week the B.C. government introduced a Trade Practices Act designed to halt what is termed

'sharp practices' and gives consumers a chance to recover

losses when they are victimized by unfair business tactics.

"While the bill does provide for a director of

[ Page 3473 ]

trade practices to handle consumer complaints and investigate

possible contraventions, it assigns to the courts the role of ordering

practices to be stopped in ruling upon questions of redress."

I just wanted to cite that favourable editorial from the

Financial Post because later on today if another bill

comes up I will be citing unfavourable ones, and wanted to

establish the fact that it's an impartial jury.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister well with this bill

over the next year. I ask her to keep in mind the possibility

of amendment on the fine details as it is worked out, and on

the particular importance in the way in which the director

approaches his new duties.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano for reading that editorial, I had it

handy, and if you hadn't, I would have.

It has been very, very well received by, as I say, all

segments of the community. We have received some very good

correspondence from some solicitors who do not share our

party's philosophy, but they went out of their way to say that

they thought this was a fine piece of legislation, and

congratulated us rather extensively on it.

I might add that the bill merely being introduced into the

House for the first time has appeared to be having an effect

already. I think we have seen that effect in the case of the

Budget Mobile Home situation. It's quite clear it would appear,

in my mind at least, that the gentleman involved, who absconded

with $180,000, stole from his partner, he stole from his

creditors and he stole from his customers. He happened to do it

after this Act was introduced.

Also it has come to our attention that several other sharp

operators in other fields have also taken to the hills outside

of British Columbia. So just merely the fact that the bill was

introduced into the Legislature has already had a very

progressive effect for all concerned, for all citizens. I'm

sure that I appreciate the support from all Members of the

House on this matter.

I now move second reading of Bill 126.

Motion approved.

Bill 126, Trade Practices Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 139.

AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND

DEVELOPMENT (BRITISH COLUMBIA)

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the government has previously made it

quite obvious that it wants to pursue a programme to save agricultural land,

and furthermore wants to develop land that is fit for agriculture but has not

previously been developed.

Under the ALDA programme that was expanded upon so much in

the spring of 1973, we have enabled farmers to clear a great

deal more land than was ever possible before under the older

legislation.

In the 1973 fiscal period when $900,000 was provided under

the ALDA vote, something just over half of that was actually

spent — $491,000. In 1974 under the changed legislation, when

$1.5 million was provided for, knowing that the legislation was

being changed, we had to go back to Treasury during the year

and ask for additional funds, so approximately $2.4 million was

spent in total — a substantial increase over the previous

year.

In the period we're now in, when we actually provided $2.5

million, at the rate that applications are coming in and being

processed it would look as though, if we're going to keep

accepting them, we will again have to go back to Treasury as

the rate at which it's going now would indicate an expenditure

during the year of some $4 million.

With respect to ARDA, a programme that has provided for

perhaps more large-scale work in the way of making land

available for agriculture, again the history in the past was

that substantial funds would be provided in estimates but then

not spent because the legislation was too restrictive.

In the fiscal period ending March 31, 1973, when $5.5

million was voted for ARDA, less than half of that was spent — a total of about $2.4 million. In 1974 the same amount was

provided and, as has been indicated in question period, we

don't have the figures yet, but likely it will be in the same

neighbourhood, probably less than half.

In the current period the amount provided is the same,

although estimates would actually show $4.5 million rather than

$5.5 million — this is because $1 million is being transferred

to the Secretariat for work that is being done under the Canada

Land Inventory. So really we have the same amount of money to

work with, but in my own department, under ARDA, $4.5

million.

Again, we will, if we are bound within the existing

legislation, find that it just won't be possible to spend this

amount of money clearing and increasing the amount of

agricultural land actually in production in the province.

The legislation before us would enable the department to go

ahead on projects without having to wait for Ottawa to approve

them. In many cases we know from the nature of the project and

from the experience we have had with the federal government

that a project will be approved but it still takes a minimum of

eight months, sometimes two years, to

[ Page 3474 ]

get final approval.

This legislation in one of the amendments would enable us to

go ahead on that project in anticipation of federal government

approval eventually and at that time the funds would be

recovered, but would enable us to go ahead in anticipation. Of

course if it happened that it wasn't approved, we would still

have that much more land in production.

A second instance in which this bill would enable us to move

would be particularly in the case of community-pasture

development. When this was first provided for some 12 years

ago, it was possible to bring land into production as a

community pasture for an average rate of $50 an acre. But

that's 12 years ago and costs have gone up tremendously in the

interim period. Yet if it's going to cost more than that, we

just can't enter into an agreement with Ottawa for development

of that particular community pasture.

Again, knowing that the costs are going to exceed $50, this

legislation would enable us to charge the excess amount against

the ARDA vote and still enter into agreement with Ottawa on the

$50 rate until we can get that negotiated upward.

One further case where we could use this vote, when this

legislation is passed, is in the case of relatively smaller

projects affecting a number of individuals. If it wasn't quite

appropriate to the federal agreement…the federal agreement,

for example, binds us to having at least seven farmers

benefiting from it, sharing the costs. Sometimes it may be a

bit too restrictive. It would, on examination, enable the

department to go ahead with the project, a relatively small

one, even knowing that it would not qualify for federal

sharing, but still would qualify for agricultural

rehabilitation and development.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we'll certainly support this

legislation.

It's almost ironic to hear the Minister state that sometimes

Ottawa doesn't move as fast as they do, I know the previous

government was always being condemned for not getting as many

dollars out of Ottawa as there were there. But now that the

government who were in opposition are dealing with Ottawa,

they're finding that it's not always possible to move that fast

and there are certain restrictive clauses which….

Certainly this will be a great assistance to the Peace River area where there

are many projects involving, as the Minister said, less than seven farmers.

Certainly, even where certain community pastures have been established, there

is a necessity to upgrade them, replant them and replough them because they're

being taken over in some instances by the native aspen in the area and they

should be upgraded. So this Act will certainly allow for that.

There are certainly other areas in the Peace River area,

which are Crown land, which could be extended into community

pastures, and this will certainly be of great assistance,

therefore we will certainly support the legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too will support the

legislation. The aspect of it which I find most gratifying is

the repatriation, or I suppose it is the patriation of ARDA as

far as British Columbia is concerned. I've long felt that the

limitations under the existing ARDA programme which obliged

that there be federal-provincial participation was indeed

shutting off from rehabilitation many projects which the

provincial department itself might feel worthwhile.

I would hope that what the Minister has indicated about the

seven farmers and so on is not going to suggest that the areas

in which the province may decide to go it alone will be

necessarily of such small compass, and that the provincial

government will in the future see fit to undertaking projects

without requiring any cost participation at all by the people

who in the first instance may appear to benefit from the

programme.

The startling thing about agricultural rehabilitation is

that those who need rehabilitation most are often those who can

least afford to embark upon these programmes, yet by giving

this kind of aid they may be put in the position where they can

make a significant contribution to the development of

agriculture in the province. If this is the direction we're

going, then I think it bodes well for the agricultural

segment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps having spoken so

optimistically about it and had the support of the parties

opposite, I should draw attention to the fact that we still

want to use this as a joint programme and there is the

restriction in the Act that the "go it alone" funds are limited

to 25 per cent of the vote. We may find, with experience, that

that should be changed and may come back another year asking

for a change.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 139, Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development

(British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 106, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 3475 ]

PHARMACY ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 106 is a new Pharmacy

Act totally endorsed by and, as a matter of fact,

completely done in cooperation with the Pharmaceutical

Association. The Act was first suggested to my department not

long after we came into office and I think it was in the works

prior to that. It's taken a great deal of discussion and a

great deal of time. Generally speaking, the Act is

an Act that…. Well, I shouldn't say generally speaking — it's

an Act that

we endorse completely, but it is

an Act of the Pharmaceutical

Association.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like just briefly to go over the main areas

of change. First of all I'll just indicate that we left the

pesticide Act attached to the Pharmacy Act temporarily.

You recall that some time ago we appointed a royal commission

to look into the whole question of pesticides in the Province

of British Columbia. Now that royal commission has submitted an

interim report, but that report is not by any stretch of the

imagination final. The final report we expect sometime later on

this year and at that time I would suggest that it's very

likely, if not almost for sure, that the pesticide aspect will

be taken out of the Pharmacy Act .

We thought of delaying the Pharmacy Act , waiting for

the report and then, ultimately, I would hope, new pesticide

legislation. That hasn't been possible, so we felt, and the

Pharmaceutical Association felt as well, that it would be

important for us to submit the Act to this parliament and deal

with it now. Then when it's necessary we will amend the

pesticide aspect out.

So the pesticide aspect of this bill is identically the same

as the old pesticide Act, just so that we do have a pesticide

Act. You see, if we brought in a Pharmacy Act which

would eliminate the old Pharmacy Act , then we'd have no

pesticide Act in the province. So therefore we had to bring

this in just to cover us in the interim period.

Briefly, the main areas of change are as follows. The

possible size of the council is increased. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints one member and the dean

of the faculty of pharmaceutical science is automatically a

member. The president is automatically a member of the

executive committee.

In discipline, there are sections that are new and they

don't correspond to the existing discipline measures, but as I

said this is the area that has been tightened up a little bit

by the Pharmaceutical Association and certainly we go along

with them.

The bylaws and rules are distinctly separated and authority

is given in each area to make bylaws and rules,

whereas in the

present Act — that's the Act that we have in force now — the

authority to make bylaws and regulations is all included in one

section and there is no distinction.

Pharmacy ownership has been a problem in the past. The

present Act requires that if a pharmacy is operated by a

company incorporated subsequent to 1946, the majority of common

stock must be held by pharmacists. This common stock provision

was exempted for companies incorporated prior to that date.

Remember the grandfather clause was not part of the Pharmacy

Act — I should say the grandfather clause meant that any

large chain that was incorporated prior to 1946 could continue

on in its own way. You'll notice one of the major chains was

transferred — from Cunningham's to Shoppers Drug Mart. They're

still using that grandfather clause. This bill leaves out all

references to ownership and in fact enlarges the terms of the

present Act so that societies and cooperatives can own

pharmacies. So that, I think, is a real improvement in the

Act.

Because of the removal of the ownership requirement, more

liability and responsibility has been placed not only on the

pharmacists' directors, but on the lay directors and upon the

manager as well.

This bill is a little distinctive from the old Act. The

present Act has no details of appeal procedure, although it

does allow for an appeal from a decision of the council. The

bill contains a very clear-cut method of the procedure. In

other words, the old bill wasn't clear, but the new bill has a

very clear-cut method of appeal.

Also, under "limitation of action," action against a

person registered as a pharmacist for negligence or malpractice

is limited to six months in the present Act and has been raised

to one year in this bill.

Also, under "wholesales," Mr. Speaker, authority is

granted in this bill for the inspection of records of

wholesales, which will assist in ensuring that drugs are only

supplied to persons who are licensed to resell them.

Mr. Speaker, I think that basically those are the changes.

Otherwise it very much reflects the old Pharmacy Act .

It's a bit improved, and it's completely endorsed by the

Department of Health and the Pharmaceutical Association.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of Bill

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to

express support for the bill from the official opposition.

We've talked to the pharmacy people and it's the result of a

lot of work by them with the Health department and they're

completely happy with it. We'll support the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say

other than I'm very pleased that the opposition have checked it

out, as they obviously have, and that they do support this

bill. I think it is a progressive piece of legislation. I

therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3476 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 106, Pharmacy Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

HON. MRS. DAILLY: This bill currently before the House is

not a major revision of the Public Schools Act, but it

does introduce a number of important changes, particularly in

the whole area of the power of school boards in this province.

The bill taken as a whole gives evidence of the government's

desire to place as much autonomy as possible in the hands of

the locally elected boards of school trustees in this

province.

Also in these amendments we have removed a number of

obsolete and redundant sections from the present school Act. In

addition, we have made a number of minor revisions, primarily

as a result of representations to the government from the

boards of school trustees and the Teachers' Federation which we

feel should improve a number of specific areas. Some of these

areas, which I'd, just like to discuss generally and in

principle in this reading, are in the area of giving local

autonomy in the matter of the approval of courses and the use

of textbooks.

The principle in this bill recommends that the boards will

now have the authority to approve courses of study, textbooks,

supplementary readers and other instructional materials for use

in their districts. Prior to this Act being placed before you,

any board which wished to have approval for a local course had

to come before the Minister for approval. We are now saying

that we think certainly that out there the school districts

with their professional staff and with their teachers are able

to develop, on their own, specific courses which will meet the

needs of their own students without having to bring them before

the Minister for approval. This, of course, will also mean that

they will have an opportunity to involve themselves in

selection eventually of their own textbooks.

I do want to make it clear that the government has no

intention of abrogating its responsibility to ensure that every

child in the public schools of this province receives the basic

core curriculum for which he and she are entitled.

We feel that this must still be given the leadership of the department, and

direction in this matter, particularly for curriculum. So it is mainly an enrichment

area. However, there are some boards that might consider the course being put

in for more than enrichment, but it should be part of the study of that programme.

But it will all be done to complement the basic board curriculum.

We realize that this is going to require a considerable

amount of work for the school boards in the province, and at

the moment we are setting up committees to meet with the boards

so that we can develop the necessary regulations to ensure that

this transition toward locally approved courses is done

smoothly.

Numerous people are concerned with the status of independent

schools which up to now have been receiving their textbooks. I

want to assure the House that the independent schools will

still have access to any materials stocked by the Department of

Education in the same manner in which it has been done

heretofore and up to the present time. In other words, the

textbooks will still be available.

Obviously, there are many current arrangements which will

have to be worked out among the school boards to have this

develop smoothly.

There are other minor sections of the Act which I think

would be better discussed in the committee stage. There are

amendments to indemnities which allow all boards, no matter

what size, to pay a certain maximum, if they so wish. Before,

the smaller boards had been discriminated against.

There is also a

section of the Act which actually states

that we do feel that the district superintendents must also

consult with their professional staff, over which they have

direction, before they make major professional decisions in

their districts.

The government firmly believes in the consultation theory in

the management of its affairs. Since the district

superintendent of the district is specifically directed by the

Public Schools Act , it is felt it's appropriate to spell

out in the school Act to all concerned that we expect and want

to see this consultation technique used.

You will also find in the Act that we have now removed the

former restriction against persons who are registered under the

Marriage Act not being eligible as teachers. Now any

person registered under the Marriage Act is eligible to

teach in the schools of British Columbia.

One of the major sections of our Act is the removal of the

capital referendum., This is something which has, of course,

been asked for by a number of school boards. It is something

which our government, when in opposition, advocated. We do

believe that the school boards are quite capable of making

those referendum decisions on capital requirements. I do want

to point out, however, that there certainly is a counter-check

by government as we pay 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or 90 per

cent of capital expenditures in some areas of the district. All

approval for capital programmes has to come, of course, before

the

[ Page 3477 ]

Department of Education, so there is certainly a

counter-check on it. What we are basically saying, though, is

that school boards are responsible enough to make those basic

decisions without having to go to referendum.

It will give them a chance to plan, I think. In the

long-range view they won't be in the situation they were in

under the former government where the referendum was still

insisted upon and where you had school districts having their

referendums go down to defeat with the result that today, we,

as the government, are having to pick up many of those areas

which have been standing neglected in the past.

We feel that the taxpayers have their rights in this because

certainly they elect the school board. That's where they can

certainly let their school board know whether they are pleased

with their planning or not.

I would also hope that any school board would use the

mechanism of consultation with their taxpayers if they are

planning a new type of expenditure in capital which they think

the taxpayers might be concerned about. We would certainly

expect them to have public meetings and discuss these new

programmes with the taxpayers before they present their

programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was most pleasing

to hear the Hon. Minister give us two assurances today: first,

there will not be any de-emphasis or curtailment of t