[ Page 2381 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Easter recess. Mr. Curtis — 2381

Gabriola ferry landing. Mr. Chabot — 2381

Armed entry of city tavern. Mr. Wallace — 2381

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

Rail cars for BCR. Mr. Fraser — 2382

Possible power cutbacks. Mr. Curtis — 2382

Railroad construction between Clinton and Ashcroft. Mr. Fraser — 2382

Sukunka coal negotiations. Mr. Gardom — 2383

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

Flooding at Mica reservoir. Mr. Rolston — 2383

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. (Bill No. 149). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2384

Mr. Gardom — 2384

Mr. Lockstead — 2385

Mr. Wallace — 2385

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2385

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2386

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act (Bill No. 151). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2386

Mr. McGeer — 2387

Mr. Wallace — 2388

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2388

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. (Bill No. 159). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2389

Mr. McClelland — 2390

Mr. Williams — 2391

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2392

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2392

Mr. Morrison — 2393

Mr. McGeer — 2393

Mr. Lauk — 2395

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2396

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

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2396

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

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2397

Mr. Gardom — 2398

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2398

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

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2398

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2398

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

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2399

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

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

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2399

An Act to Amend the Farmers' Land-Clearing Assistance Act. (Bill No. 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2400

Mr. Smith — 2400

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2400

Mr. Richter — 2401

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2401

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968. (Bill No. 130). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 2401

Mr. Barnes — 2402

Mr. Rolston — 2402

Mr. Williams — 2403

Hon. Mr. King — 2403

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

Hon. Mr. King — 2404

Mr. Chabot — 2404

Mr. Williams — 2404

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

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

Hon. Mr. King — 2405

Mr. Chabot — 2405

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2406

Mr. Wallace — 2407

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2408

Mr. Phillips — 2408

Mr. Smith — 2410

Mr. Curtis — 2410

Mr. Nicolson — 2411

Mr. McClelland — 2412

Mr. McGeer — 2412

Mr. Richter — 2413

Mr. Williams — 2413

Mr. Barnes — 2413

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2415

An Act for Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia. (Bill No. 172).

Royal assent — 2415

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

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

EASTER RECESS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Barrett). In order to assist Members and others associated with this House who are attempting to plan their immediate future, could the Premier indicate what might take place in the event the House has not concluded its business by the Easter weekend? Would he announce a recess of some days duration?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It is too early to answer that. I fully anticipate completion of the business in front of the House before Easter.

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

GABRIOLA FERRY LANDING

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has asked to be kept informed by the Gabriola Advisory Planning Commission of any correspondence between the Department of Highways and the local commission regarding the Gabriola ferry landing, can the Minister advise if he has implemented any system to advise his colleague on what is taking place at Gabriola?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Yes, we are having discussions on that matter right now.

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

ARMED ENTRY OF CITY TAVERN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would seek your guidance in the absence of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), I am not quite sure who should be asked the question — but it is a matter of some urgent public importance, I think. I would like to ask, perhaps, the acting Attorney General whether any action is pending following the entry of two men with rifles to a tavern in this city last week to the great fear of the people in the tavern. I understand two soldiers with loaded rifles marched in and mounted guard on two exits to the building. This seems to be rather an unusual occurrence and I wonder if the Attorney General has any action he plans to take against the two people concerned?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter would have to await the return of the Attorney General. Hope nobody shoots the gun. (Laughter).

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

AMALGAMATION VOTE IN KAMLOOPS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), Mr. Speaker. Now that the B.C. Court of Appeal, on Friday, upheld the supreme court ruling concerning a vote on amalgamation among the various areas near Kamloops. Can I ask the Minister when he has scheduled for such a vote to take place? and what steps he has taken to arrange such a vote?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There will be legislation brought in shortly in connection with this question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether or not legislation would be brought forward. What steps is the Minister taking to obey the court's ruling?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The court ruling referred to my proposal to the cabinet regarding a proposal. This proposal hasn't been made as yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am confused on proposals, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister indicate at this time when such a vote is likely to take place?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary question regarding Kelowna then — if we can't get very far with the Kamloops amalgamation. As far as Kelowna is concerned, can the Minister advise whether or not the amalgamation advisory committee, which has been set up, will be continuing its work after the end of this month — regardless of the setting up of any interim council for the area?

HON. MR. LORIMER: It will not be carrying on its work after the interim council is set up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister if negotiations on the points given to this advisory committee to work on have not been dealt with by that time, will the committee simply disappear and

[ Page 2382 ]

will these negotiations collapse?

MR. SPEAKER: I think your questions is hypothetical.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

RAIL CARS FOR BCR

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Premier as president of the British Columbia Railroad. The rail car situation continues to deteriorate, I was wondering if you had anything new to report on getting rail cars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing new to report, Mr. Member. As I announced last week, plans were being made to lease cars, and we hope for an earlier arrival of the 500 cars we have purchased. As you know, there is a North American shortage. We are doing everything we possibly can.

MR. FRASER: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. What about the leasing of cars? Is there nothing new on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing new. The machinery has been put in action. We have informed the railways to do whatever they can in terms of leasing or obtaining cars. There are no holds barred.

MR. SPEAKER: I might say for the guidance of Members that questions having been asked several times already — unless there is something new that has occurred that you are aware of, I don't think you should keep repeating the question.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I know. I appreciate it's urgent. The question is whether there is anything to add to the existing state of fact.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

POSSIBLE POWER CUTBACKS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). Could the Minister indicate to the House if British Columbia Hydro, or his department, foresee any difficulties in the next several months in light of low snow pack and light rainfall in many parts of British Columbia? Any power generating difficulties; any likelihood of power cutbacks in the summer or early fall?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'm certainly not aware of any, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental please, Mr. Speaker. With specific respect to the central Vancouver Island area — Strathcona, Ledora, John Hart systems — I understand that water in some of those lakes is extremely low. Does he have any comment on that particular part of British Columbia and the B.C. Hydro generating system?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as the Member is aware, we are proceeding with additional cables to southern Vancouver Island in terms of the immediate longer term. With respect to the lakes on the island, I would have to check that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN CLINTON AND ASHCROFT

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, another question to the president of the railroad. In view of the fact the B.C. government has asked a minimum of $19 million for the northern extension of the British Columbia Railroad, does the province expect any projected hookup between the B.C. Railroad and the CNR involving 44 miles of construction between Clinton and Ashcroft to be paid by the national government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are discussing a number of problems with the CNR including the payments we think are owing to the people of British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Would the Ashcroft-Clinton construction be over and above the request for $19 million?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: A number of things.

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

MR. FRASER: A further supplemental. Is the province seeking to achieve a similar rate structure on the CNR line as is now obtainable on the BCR for resource-oriented shipments, particularly wood chips?

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

MR. FRASER: Is the province seeking to achieve a similar rate structure on the CN lines as now exists on the British Columbia Railroad particularly with regard to resource shipping such as wood chips?

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

[ Page 2383 ]

CNR's rates. We have our own position in negotiations on a large number of things. Negotiations were being entered into by the previous administration and we have altered those negotiations a bit, but the negotiations are continuing.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neither do I.

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

SUKUNKA COAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would ask the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Barrett) if he would today give the House some information, and so far he hasn't, concerning the Sukunka coal negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members. I think there has got to be a termination of the constant repetition of questions that have been answered.

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

MR. SPEAKER: He has answered the questions. The fact of the matter is, under Beauchesne at p. 147, you are not permitted to repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused. And the Member keeps repeating the same question.

MR. GARDOM: He can just update the House in the current situation, Mr. Speaker. It's a perfectly valid question.

MR. SPEAKER: We would waste the time of the House when there are other important questions being sought.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are continuing.

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

MUNICIPAL TRANSIT BUSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the statement issued by him last Friday regarding transit buses in the province, can I ask whether the municipalities concerned will have the right to request or specify what type of vehicle they would like, in particular in terms of width — I am thinking now of the problem in Vancouver dealing with bridges — or whether or not the Government intends to supply them with the buses they have on hand, which are something else?

HON. MR. LORIMER: If the municipalities have a request, we will listen to their request and we will cooperate with the municipalities. I haven't received any requests up until now about any of those matters you have raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

FLOODING AT MICA RESERVOIR

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources who is also on the Hydro board. I understand the Mica reservoir is now beginning to flood as of a few weeks ago. Do you feel this has been adequately logged? Are we still going to go through the same thing that we went through with the Peace, and even 65 years ago with the Stave Lake?

The second part of my question is, do I understand bids are in now for four of the six turbines? Can you make any comment on those? Will the suppliers of these turbines be reliable sources of parts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think one should ask one question at a time, and if anything falls from that, further supplementaries. The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Mica reservoir, the dam was completed on March 29. With respect to the basin itself, we are looking at an outside consulting study proposal.

The powerhouse contract was let last week, I believe. I would have to take the questions of turbines themselves as notice.

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

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question on the Mica Dam. Could you tell me just how much the water has risen? There appears to be a fear of serious flooding behind the Mica Dam which was sealed on March 29. How much has the water risen there and how long will it take for the basin to fill?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that was the purpose of the dam, if I remember correctly. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Can the Minister give us some idea of how long it will take

[ Page 2384 ]

to fill up the basin behind Mica Dam?

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

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

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

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Members are aware, this Act provides a grant of up to $1,000 or a second mortgage loan of up to $5,000 for residents purchasing a new home in the province, and a grant of up to $500 or a second mortgage loan of up to $2,500 for residents who previously rented in the province to buy an older home in the province.

The proposed amendment is to ensure that these benefits are available to Indians who wish to purchase a home on a reserve; in addition, to protect the moneys owing the Home Acquisition Fund. The power of the Minister to collect moneys owing is broadened in a similar manner to collection purposes now included in most provincial taxation statutes.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, also has a provision that gives retroactivity to it, going back to 1966. While the question of retroactive legislation is generally attacked, there are specific instances where retroactivity must be brought in to provide a correction for an improper Act or what we think may be an improper application of an Act.

This Act has been unfair up till now, Mr. Speaker, in that native Indians were discriminated against by an official policy, and I think that is a mark against all of us — not just those who formulated the policy of such discrimination, but for the rest of us in the province who have had to live with it.

I'm very, very pleased that on an occasion like this, government can sometimes take a direct step in correcting something that was wrong, something that was discriminatory.

I want to suggest to the native Indian people of this province that when these cheques come out, we would welcome any group request to have the cheques come in a group as was proposed to us by the Haida Indians from the Charlottes. We would welcome any request they have in the direction of the use of those funds, if they agree, in terms of a capital purpose or any bulk purchasing they may wish to do. For example, it is my impression that some of the people who are eligible are interested in buying furniture for their homes or improving their homes, and if they purchase as a group, the prices they purchase for will be lower.

I am sure the House would agree that we would allow the regulations to bend so that these people can use the funds as they see fit as individuals or voluntarily see fit as groups. So I am publicly now asking the other native Indians, along with the Queen Charlotte people, to send down any suggestions or requests that they have on these funds.

I move second reading.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, this is one of those very, very rare and few satisfactions of an Opposition Member. As the older Members of the House do know, this has been a measure that has been proposed over here since the inception of this statute by a multitude of speeches and amendments to these statutes and also by private Members' bills. We thoroughly support the position of the Government and the direction indicated by the Premier when he opened the debate.

I think over and above, though, it would be terribly beneficial to the Indian community and terribly beneficial to the Province of B.C. from a social point of view that we continue to correct those injustices which still exist. There is no reason that I know why all of the services that surround an Indian reserve are not able to be provided to an Indian reserve.

I think that should be the direction of the Government.

Secondly, the per capita grants in this session are increasing from $30 to $32 which is far lower than they should be increasing to. I would advocate that these per capita municipal grants be made available to self-governing Indian bands. Of the approximately 192 bands we do have in the province, about 159 of those have some form of self-government. I advocate that they be entitled to receive those grants.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, other provinces in Canada have seen their way clear to grant reserve Indian bands a fair share of the municipal taxes or provincial taxes that are collected from a non-occupier of Indian land. And I notice I have the Premier's attention.

It is true that Indian reserve lands are not subject to income tax. However, when a band or a locatee of a band surrenders his interest and leases it to someone who is non-Indian, at that point it immediately becomes taxable either to the province or taxable to the municipality if the band happens to be within the confines of a municipality.

[ Page 2385 ]

We find in Saskatchewan that 50 per cent of the taxes a municipality collects from an occupier of Indian land is transferred back to the band. We find even a more generous situation in Alberta whereby this taxpaying occupier of Indian land is granted a total exemption from municipal taxes in order to provide a better rent, a better deal to the reserve Indian from whom he may rent his land.

Lastly, I enjoyed the remarks of the Premier indicating that the Indian people who will be able to qualify under this retroactive legislation will be able to have some options and freedom concerning the use of the money. The Premier said yes, if they needed furnishings they could buy that. Well, I'd like him to go the next step.

In the Province of Ontario — it's a very good illustration — they relieve a reserve Indian from the payment of sales tax providing the article is purchased for the use on the reserve. So in your furniture example they would obviously be buying furniture for their homes in their reserve and there is no reason that I know why they should have to pay 5 per cent tax on it when just with a little snap of the fingers, Mr. Premier, you would quite be able to eradicate that tax.

What we are trying to push for here, and what I've been advocating since I've been a Member of this House, is to cure social injustice. Let's get on with it a little more quickly than we have.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to make a short statement in support of this bill.

The object of the Provincial Home Acquisition Act was to encourage people to own their own homes, Mr. Speaker. This principle was abandoned, however, when the benefits of the Act were refused to the Indian people living on reserves in British Columbia.

The past government's reasons for not making this grant available for Indian people living on reserves was that since Indian reserves are under the federal Indian Act, the province does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the measure. Secondly, reserve Indians would not be subject to land tax.

Well, let's look at this for a second. An Indian does not have to pay any income tax on income earned on a reserve. This is hardly ever applicable because the income British Columbian Indians earn, they earn in the various locations off the reserve, Mr. Speaker, not on the reserve.

Indian people are not liable for land tax for their reserve houses. Again, this should not be of concern because there are thousands of homeowners in the Province of British Columbia who, by virtue of the Home-owners' Grant, don't pay any land tax at all. The location of almost all Indian reserve lands would place them in this non-payment category.

It must be remembered that Indian people pay just the same taxes as any other British Columbia citizen — the 5 per cent provincial sales tax, the motor vehicle users tax, the tax on building materials and a host of others.

In my constituency, Mr. Speaker, one small reserve of less than 400 people — the Sechelt Indian Reserve — it has been estimated that over a four-year period they have paid over $101,000 in provincial taxes.

Improved housing is one of the greatest needs of Indian people in this province today. Our Government is willing to do everything it can to foster the principles of such a programme.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we have stated in the House already that housing and education of the Indians are indeed very obviously the biggest need. I want to say that this party strongly supports the measure introduced.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members for their comments. The point made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey concerning the 5 per cent sales tax — stores already operating on the reserve do not charge 5 per cent sales tax. Those are sales that are made on the reserve.

But to ask, Mr. Member, that the 5 per cent sales tax be taken off the native Indians on this furniture…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That, to me, Mr. Member, is a reverse form of discrimination. All people should pay taxes equally and receive benefits from taxation equally, regardless of race, creed, colour and anything else. To eliminate a group because they are native Indians — or to exclude them because they are native Indians — is a mistake. We're talking about citizens of British Columbia. Every citizen should have equal access to the services of this province.

A native Indian who owns a car and who drives on the roads should pay a licence and he should pay 5 per cent sales tax on his car. He should pay 5 per cent sales tax on his tires. When he drives to his home he should have the home acquisition grant on his home. It's equality that we're looking for, not any separation in any way possible.

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

[ Page 2386 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if they're municipalities that's something to consider. But to my knowledge not one of them is in a municipality yet. I think there was a dispute over the one on Vancouver Island. I don't think that's been resolved. But they had a close vote, as I understand it.

I am very, very pleased with the positive response. I'm pleased, too, with the response from that Member about the use of the funds for furniture. But I want to make it very clear that each individual who is eligible for these funds of course has the right of determination of how these funds are to be used.

If a band or council or reserve representative gets signatures of agreement of groups of people so that the funds can be used in a common purpose — that is to buy furniture in bulk or for home improvements on a bulk basis or something like that — then it's my assumption that the House is in favour if it's voluntarily decided by each individual in that community.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Now if one individual wants to opt out, they have that right. Certainly they can have the retroactive money and spend it as they wish. But the people from Masset made the point that they'd be better to buy as a group in bulk purchasing. I said that we would go along with that if we had written agreement by everybody who wanted to so purchase. So away they go.

It's a good day. It's something decent that we've done today. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 149 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
LOGGING TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Logging Tax Act imposes a 15 per cent tax on net profits from logging operations in the province where the profits exceed $10,000 a year. Where a company also processes the logs after cutting the timber the total profit from all the operations is subject to tax.

The Act allows a processing allowance to be deducted. That is in line with our philosophy about the application of labour to raw materials.

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision has ruled the the Act is not clear on the taxing of certain processing procedures which could considerably affect the revenues received by the province from this tax. The intent of the Logging Tax Act since its inception has been to tax all profits received by a company from logging operations, including the profits received from further processing into products after the processing allowance has been made.

It has been so administered and the tax has been so paid.

The amendment proposed in this bill results from the court of appeal decision and is intended to make this tax policy clear. While this bill is made retroactive to January 1, 1972, I would emphasize that it does not alter the tax policy that has been in effect since the inception of the Act. Rather it clarifies the policy.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 150 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH
COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the authorized borrowing powers of the British Columbia Railway Company from $340 million to $440 million. The increase is necessary in order that the company may continue its line extension programme, continue with improvements to the present line and acquire the additional equipment made necessary by the considerable increase in traffic, such as boxcars.

The authorization is also necessary so the railway can plan its capital expenditure programme in advance and the sums required may be borrowed over the years ahead. The provincial government is planning now for projects in the future and, while the authorization is not required now, the government does not want it to be hindered in these plans by a lack of borrowing authorization.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we complete our negotiations with the CNR we will announce quickly exactly what specific proposals we've agreed

[ Page 2387 ]

upon, what new areas of construction and what our programme is. The authorization will be there so that we can carry on.

It's a new era of co-operation with the CN. I'm hoping that the negotiations will be fruitful. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. On this increase of $100 million, have you any breakdown as to equipment and construction — how it breaks down?

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, our party will support this bill. We agree that the British Columbia Railway must have adequate borrowing powers to undertake its expansion in the north. We think the Premier has interesting plans for integration of the railroad facilities in north-west British Columbia and that the net effect of this is going to make natural resources that were not viable before viable in the future, providing resource taxation doesn't make it impossible again.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some comments, however, about the methods of financing of the railway and the interaction with the Legislature of British Columbia. Of course I refer to the Premier's statements today that there was a very definite capital budget of the B.C. Railway, a need for them to plan in advance what their borrowings would be. But, Mr. Speaker, we have never seen such a budget in this Legislative Assembly. We've only had the word of yourself and the vice-president of the railway, Mr. Broadbent, that such a budget exists and that they adhere very closely to it.

If we're going to borrow the money for expansion of the B.C. Railway by using surplus tax funds, then I think it important that the budget of the B.C. Railway be laid before the House so that a decision can be made as to what taxes will be necessary for the financing of the railway each year when the budget is presented.

As far as the expenditures themselves are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed at the time that the executives of the B.C. Railway appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to learn that they do their engineering prior to the laying of the track in a very limited way; when the tenders are actually called, that they're called on a unit basis with almost a minimum upset figure as being the limit set by the railroad in laying the tender out.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a practice which should be questioned in the Legislature. It was this very sort of approach which led to the famous highways investigation years ago, before I sat on the committee, where the then Leader of the Opposition was the leading proponent of changes in the way highway contracts should be let. The present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), seemed far less interested in those principles at the Public Accounts Committee meeting as a Member of the Government. Mr. Speaker, we should be prepared — just an observation —

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Oh go on with you. Take that back, you're a brain surgeon but you don't know anything about brains.

MR. McGEER: My goodness me, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways is very twitchy this afternoon. I'm merely observing a change in his outlook. I thought that the Minister of Highways was a perfectly consistent individual and that he would show the same bird-dogging attitude as a member of the Public Accounts Committee on the Government side that he did as an investigator on the Opposition side. Some veteran members of the House remember that spectacular inquiry.

What it had as its basis, Mr. Speaker, was a failure to do tight engineering work to begin with, and then to have the contract itself follow that engineering work. I would hope with some of this borrowing power of the B.C. Railway, we would beef up the engineering staff of the B.C. Railway, so that thorough investigations would be done before the contracts were set. Then when tenders are called, one will have an idea that the contract itself, the actual amount of money that is paid, will bear some relationship to the budget that is set out in the tender.

The suggestion was made at the committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, that the firms that bid had a good idea that they would have to move far more material than the contract actually called for. Therefore it was possible for them to bid lower on a unit basis.

But the question that was left in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of many people who were there, was why the contractor should be so aware of those things when the tenderer isn't. How is it the contractor can do greater engineering than the railway itself? So with this borrowing power, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that part of it would go to increased engineering staff on B.C. Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the purpose of this bill deals with borrowing power. But if it comes down to how many cups of sugar that the cook uses on the railway, I think it's beyond the power of the bill — or how they tender, or what they do in regard to the ordinary operation of the railway. I would ask the

[ Page 2388 ]

Hon. Member to try somehow to relate his words to the problem of borrowing money.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect, Sir, expenses are high in the north — but we're talking about things that ran into millions of dollars and that's more than just a cup of tea. You know, this only applies for an extra $100 million, and at that rate it would only be 10 cups of tea.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us in this Legislature to scrutinize expenditures carefully, without being picayune in any way, but to be watchful when the principles on which the Legislature and the Government operate are not up to the highest possible standards.

All that I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is to have our Crown corporations operating in exactly the same fashion as does the Legislative Assembly itself, with the budget clearly laid before the Members with the integration of finances to the extent they must be integrated, fully and openly declared and with the same kinds of supervision of the expenditures in those Crown corporations that we have in the government operations themselves.

That does not mean that we should discuss individual vouchers in this House, but it means that we should have knowledge if some bird-dogging member of the Public Accounts Committee, like the Minister of Highways used to be…that he could make that pursuit and we would then know that the operations of our public corporations were of the highest possible standard, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we'll support this bill, but it's our desire to see things get even better in a financial way in the future.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill also, clearly on the basis that we recognize that the successful development of our resources depends so intimately on transportation facilities. We've had very recent reminders of that.

The explanatory notes certainly are not part of the legislation, but they mention $1 million instead of $100 million. I think it should just be put on the record that the explanatory notes on the bill are out by $99 million.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought you said that you were not going to be picayune. (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, we cannot give a breakdown on the equipment until we complete the negotiations. Then we know exactly what we have to buy and what our share is and what's involved.

The Member mentioned that we need to spend the money to get the railroad to the resources. I like to follow the logic through the next step. The resources are open and people have jobs and industry a profit. Then we need to tax industry so that we can build the railroad further into the resources.

It just can't be isolated, Mr. Member. You can't tax the working people to build the railroad into the resources and not tax the resources. So I'm sure the financial pages of both the Vancouver Sun and Province and the Victoria Daily Colonist and Times will now write a column saying that the Liberals don't know what they're talking about — because you have to tax the resource base —

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, and we have to pay the money back that we're borrowing, don't we? Certainly and the people have to pay it back. And the rich corporations should help pay their share because they have made profits off the access to the resources.

I just don't understand you fellows. You want to soak the poor and leave the rich all alone. The people of this province have to borrow the money to get the railroad into the resources so the rich get richer and the poor have more debts. B.C. Rail — who owns B.C. Rail? It's a publicly-owned railroad. O.K. — and the people have to pay.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you that B.C. Rail can only make a profit when we start getting a better return on the resources that we're opening through the use of the rail. Raise the freight rates and then you'll be in here voting against the bill that raises the freight rates because…you'll be complaining about that. All you do is cry, cry and cry against big business; but when it comes to the people of this province having to borrow money to serve big business, that they are representing, what do they do about it? They don't like it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on; this is a socialist enterprise; the B.C. Railroad, and we support it as a straight example of socialism. If you want to vote against socialism, you vote against this bill today. Call a division so that we can go on and say you're consistent, that you voted against the socialist railroad. But if you don't vote against the railroad, then we'll tell people that you're really socialists at heart, but you really believe that the rich should benefit from this kind of socialism and not the poor.

[ Page 2389 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: You're all mixed up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member says I'm all mixed up. You see, his approach to this is this way: socialism means that the taxpayers should finance through borrowings all the losing facilities to enhance the development of resources so that rich private corporations can make the money — but that MacMillan Bloedel and the others don't build the railroad in there. No, no, no, at the end of the railroad they dig the stuff out of the ground or cut the trees, put it on the railroad that the people paid for and they can take their profits away. That's an old game. It was O.K., but it's over now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, we saw who you voted for earlier today, Mr. Member, and I'm not going to reflect in this House on that vote — not in this House. (Laughter). But I'll tell you there'll be a lot of places where I'll be reflecting on it. I'll just hold up the old Journal and say, "There it is. Guess who voted for what."

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

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you must pay heed to what he said, because he's an expert on people love. Look what happened to him last August. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those people who are condemned to live in the past. Memories, memories.

Now on to the future, Mr. Speaker. I ask the House to support the future of British Columbia and to support this bill.

One comment I do want to make — it was very well made by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey in terms of the financing in terms of construction engineering. When we came to power we found that the former administration was very, very backward in its use of competition on bidding. In terms of Crown corporations, they were allowing the contracts to go out without adapting any of their bidding approaches to save people money. As a result we found when we came to office that certain contracts were being drawn up for B.C. Hydro that, without target bidding processes that are modern business methods, would have cost the taxpayers a great deal more than necessary. Therefore, we withdrew those contracts, went on to target bidding, and we've saved the people of British Columbia, with good business sense, tens of millions of dollars that would have been wasted under Social Credit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, under the old system when you waited to get the final bill we used to get taken to court because they had poor lawyers drawing up the contracts. I remember that bridge in my own… Oh, we won't go into that. I want you to have happy memories.

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading I want to remind the Member for Point Grey that I've asked for an internal audit of the B.C. Rail. As soon as the report is in we will make the modifications. I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 151 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE
SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. F. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 159 is An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The House, I am sure, will bear with me because when one does amend a pension Act it looks as though one is dealing with a subject which is a little intricate. Secondly, the principle of the bill is not necessarily affected by the amendments. Perhaps some of the detailed discussion can best be left until committee stage.

However, I do want to introduce the bill and give a broad description to the Members of the House.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker — one of four — to bring into effect the Government's policy of moving forward on a broad front to provide pension plans among the best in Canada for employees working in the public sector in British Columbia.

The policies are to be implemented in three stages. The first stage is being presented to you in this bill. Our medium and long-range policies will be in the form of further amendments during the next few years.

I should add to that remark, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the end results on your desk in the form of Bills 159 through to 162 are the products of consultative work by the commissioner of pensions together with

[ Page 2390 ]

the employees and employers in the public sector.

The amendments in the bill are designed to compensate for the change in the cost of living since 1971, when the last increase in pensions was granted. The 2 per cent formula was introduced for this plan in 1958. Since that time increases largely based on the cost of living were worked out between representatives of the British Columbia Government Retired Employees Association and the staff of the Superannuation Branch. These discussions led to increases in 1966, 1968, 1970 and 1971.

Accordingly, the amendments in this bill will keep payments current while investigations are continued in cooperation with other interested groups to develop a practical and effective means of protecting pensioners from the erosion of their purchasing power due to price increases beyond their control.

For active contributors the bill provides improvement for everyone by reducing the averaging period from seven years to five years on the same basis as the changes in the other plans. The bill brings into effect a uniform contribution rate of 6 per cent of salary for all employees on the same basis as the other plans that the department administers. The change will be an important one, particularly for those in the lower salary ranges, where the former contribution rate of 10 per cent was difficult to meet.

However, the most important effect of the change is that those electing early retirement will not be in a position to receive the full 2 per cent formula pension after age 60 and the reduction for retirement between the ages of 55 and 60 is not so great.

May I also add there, Mr. Speaker, that part of the medium-range plan is to receive information, opinion — the current word is "input" — to the department from all the participants in the four plans regarding early retirement. Because while we all agree that early retirement, whether brought about by shorter hours, shorter weeks, months or years, is a good thing to attain, of course, you can't really get into that good position unless you've got a first-class pension plan to support it. We need to know what the employees and employers themselves think about early retirement problems and the way it can best be introduced.

This change in Bill 159 has also made it possible to bring into effect complete portability on a reciprocal basis with the various other public plans in B.C. Pensions will no longer be an important consideration for employees moving from one sector of the public service to another.

The maximum contribution paid has been changed to ensure uniformity by requiring every employee to contribute throughout his service. Where that service exceeds 35 years the employee will receive on retirement a refund of his earlier contributions with 6 per cent compound interest.

I've dealt with portability, but I will say that our objective is to ensure that service in one of the plans is equal or equivalent to the service in any of the other plans where an employee moves from one to another with a break in terms of public service of less than three years. Death, in-service benefits are to be provided for widows and widowers on the same basis and the provision terminating benefits on remarriage is removed.

The investment provisions have been broadened to conform with the changes contained in Bill 74, amending the Revenue Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Members of the House that I realize the difficulty at times in dealing with some pension legislation and my staff stand ready at any time to assist any Members in any inquiries they may have on this bill. I will be prepared, of course, to engage in full debate, perhaps in a more manageable form, in committee stage.

I therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would share the Provincial Secretary's view. We will be putting amendments on the order paper for third reading.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that these bills, these amendments to the pensions, just like Bill 74, which was referred to by the Provincial Secretary, go a long way to removing the security in our opinion from the present pension plans.

I realize that there will likely be a great deal of responsibility in the investments, right now at least, but I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that we can trust the security of all of those people who are directly involved in it, who are directly under the wing of the provincial government, to the vagaries of the market place. The Premier has insisted that he wouldn't play the market with these kinds of funds, but how do we know whether the next Premier may play the market? If the market is subject to fluctuation, what happens to all of that money that is invested on behalf of the civil servants?

We deserve answers, I think, to the question, Mr. Speaker: where will those investments be made? In what kinds of companies will those investments be made?

I'd suggest that perhaps the people whose security is involved here right now must feel fairly uneasy, because they don't know what kinds of investments will be made. The guarantee has certainly been taken away from their security. We're going to have the right to invest in any kind of corporation anywhere, not even limited to British Columbia.

The Premier, when the amendments were first introduced, was quoted as saying in the Press that he intends to invest only in blue chip corporations. Well, a blue chip corporation today may be a complete and utter disaster tomorrow. We've seen that happen in

[ Page 2391 ]

many instances.

The Premier also said "maybe" we'll invest in Crown corporations. Well, I'd say the same thing, because those Crown corporations may not be on as solid ground as we might hope they would be. If we invest in a Crown corporation that's controlling the Ocean Falls operation or the Prince Rupert operation that's recently been taken over by the provincial government, can we be accused of pouring good money after bad once again? This time we're not using my money or your money in the form of taxation; we're using money put aside by the civil servants of British Columbia to be invested at the best possible guarantee secured. The Premier as Finance Minister will have sole discretionary power in choosing these investments.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair].

As I say, that may be all right now, but what about in the future? Should that sole discretionary power to invest in any kind of corporation anywhere in the world, I guess, be left in the hands of the Finance Minister?

Madam Speaker, the question was raised late on Friday in this House about what kind of investment advice will the Finance Minister be seeking? What will be the advice received by the Government? Who is going to give that advice? Are we going to hire a competent investment analyst to tell us where we should be investing that money or are we going to play it by the seat of our pants and just invest the money where the whim desires?

Are we in fact going to be taking flyers on corporate bankrupts and other kinds of failures? The danger is certainly there, and we are leaving this wide open to all kinds of abuses, Madam Speaker.

I'd suggest, Madam Speaker, that these kinds of funds: pension funds for our civil servants, our teachers, and others, need to have the maximum protection possible. We certainly owe that to the thousands of people, Madam Speaker, who are involved here. But instead, here we are with one fell swoop of the pen taking away all of those guarantees. Yes, it's carte blanche legislation and, as I said on Friday, it could turn out to be bail-out legislation.

But even worse than the amendments that we passed on Friday to Bill 74, we are now toying and playing around with the money invested by the thousands of civil servants in this province — the money that they hope to stake the rest of their life on.

Madam Speaker, we are gambling with somebody else's money and it's pretty easy to be a high-roller when you don't have to pay the consequences and when the stakes are put up by somebody else. That kind of gambling is easy when you don't have anything to lose.

But I'd like to remind the House, Madam Speaker, that if that gamble doesn't pay off we'll have thousands and thousands of civil servants whose whole life security will be threatened.

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Based on the remarks made by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), we will support this long-awaited change in this particular superannuation legislation.

I know that the Hon. Provincial Secretary was reading from some prepared notes and I wonder if it might be possible if he would circulate those before we come to the committee stage. I think it would be of assistance in really understanding the direction that the Government is taking the House in respect of this and the other superannuation bills which are to come before us.

I, too, must raise questions about the significant change which will permit the investment of the superannuation moneys in the shares of corporations. It is a significant change, one which I think in general principle should not be denied to the investment of these moneys. If there is an opportunity of greater return to the pension fund through the investment in equities rather than bonds, then by all means the funds should have that opportunity. This is found in the private sector and there is no reason that the public sector shouldn't be treated in the same way.

In that connection I find myself in some disagreement with some of the comments from the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). However, it occurs to me that when making this step, the Government could in this particular legislation have drawn some boundaries, established some guidelines which would themselves limit the Minister of Finance in the selection of the corporations in which the funds may be invested.

There are a number of examples in the Canadian and British Insurance company legislation which is federal. The right of investment in the securities of such companies are clearly spelled out and it seems to me that something of this nature could have been incorporated in this legislation; such matters as proven dividend record and appropriate relationship between capital and debt. Many limitations would ensure that the investment of these funds in equities would be safe, secure, and at the same time give the fund the opportunity to grow as the economy of the province and of the nation grows.

To put it in a word, it would define what is "blue-chip, " to use the expression of the Minister of Finance. With this change I think that the fund itself

[ Page 2392 ]

would be more secure and the investment opportunities properly broadened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Okanagan.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Madam Speaker, the official Opposition will vote for the principle of this bill but will offer amendments in committee.

I would just point out to the Government, through you Madam Speaker, the great danger of making investments in common shares from the pension funds. Today a company is a blue-chip company; a year or two from now it's not a blue-chip company. Penn Rail, United States; I could go through them by the dozens — even that big railroad, one of the finest corporations in our country, the Canadian Pacific Railway.

At one time its employees wanted shares in that fine corporation and the CPR sold these shares to its employees at lower than market values to let them get in on some of the ownership and profits of the railway. When difficult days arrived, those shares went down so far, Madam Speaker, that many of the employees thought the CPR had deliberately loaded these shares onto the workers and that argument was used right across this whole nation. Of course they didn't, but I am only pointing out the danger of your economy.

In North America especially, since the last war, we've had one continuous boom with a few little dips, but a continuous upward movement — the longest period of advance of markets in the world's history, the longest period of comparatively good times, the best times. Not for everybody but for the average in all the world's history.

Everybody knows that which goes up will sometimes come down. Therefore I point out the great danger in this because we are, in my opinion, not quite yet but not far from the top of the boom, and there are going to be crashing stages take place. When these crashing stages take place, there will be great drops in the market and it will be too bad if these pension funds were caught in that position.

Also, all companies with some exceptions are being caught now in the cost-price squeeze: costs are going up very rapidly; wages are going up very rapidly; other costs are all going up very rapidly; taxes are going up rapidly. But the consumers will not stand it forever and there will be resistance at the market place by buyers. We see it now with the housewives regarding beef and so forth. But they are not only opposed to beef; they are opposed to other products too. And when that strike or natural resistance develops in the marketplace, we could bring an end to this forward movement in the boom. We should have some very severe corrections take place.

And I want to be on record, Madam Speaker, of pointing out these dangers at this particular time to the Government and ask them to go slow in these types of investments. Slow indeed, and keep the majority of the investments similar to what they've made now under your own control.

Contrary to some of the arguments in this House, the investments in your own Crown corporations such as Hydro, which has been condemned in this House as putting pension funds in Hydro, is the best investment you have for the pension funds — guaranteed by the Government of this province. You have some control over that.

But some of these other companies you invest in can have change in management and everything else. I'm not even referring to the change in management in Government, which is always risky, Madam Chairman. But I'm not in a critical mood today. Not at all.

I just want to say again that the official Opposition will vote for the bill, we'll move certain amendments in committee, and I speak only to warn the Government regarding this change in policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, as was indicated earlier by the Member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), we intend to vote in favour of this bill in principle.

The real concern we have is that governments of all stripes, of all persuasions, in all parts of Canada have shown a considerable lack of ability to determine what are and what are not profitable and good corporations from the point of view of investment. Therefore we feel that some restriction should be placed on the provision which allows virtually unlimited investment in any corporation.

Examples come to mind. There's a fiberboard factory in Newfoundland that's losing them, I think, $220 million. They're a relatively poor province going broke because of that. Manitoba has its problems in the north, where $10 million of a $50 million loan happened to wind up in Switzerland. No one's discovered how or why. Alberta's losing money hand over fist on a railroad in the north. There are examples from Saskatchewan.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) mentions that only our Crown corporations are good. But he's a great defender of those and I'll leave that up to him.

Another NDP province, namely Saskatchewan, had shoe factories and box factories and other things. I believe that the problem is that there is a temptation

[ Page 2393 ]

to show the faith in a corporation in which the government is interested by putting into the same type of corporation other moneys, which may not be directly public moneys but may be civil servants' or teachers' pension fund money. It makes sense. If the government is convinced that something will survive, then it will put in more than its own money. It will put in other people's money, if it has control of it.

Flyer Industries, now making buses for the Province of British Columbia, lost half a million dollars on its last year of reported operations. Yet it's 74 per cent owned by a Manitoba Crown corporation. My fear is that investment decisions may well be coloured by political considerations. This is just about unavoidable when the person responsible for making such decisions spends most of his time as a politician.

I say this with no criticism of the present Minister of Finance, (Hon. Mr. Barrett) or the previous one or the future one. It's simply a fact of life. They spend their time as politicians and when they're involved in other discussions and negotiations the tendency is for much of the views that are put forward to be in their minds when they're discussing investment of the pension funds, such as the one we're dealing with now.

Our view is that this bill should be amended at the committee stage to put in some provision protecting the pensioner, some provision protecting his or her money. The Government has the view that all legislation is to be handled only by the present Ministers. We've heard that time after time — that, "Oh, no. You won't have to worry about that. Even though it could happen under the legislation, we don't intend to do it that way." Well, that's well and good but in human events and politics in particular, change is fairly regular and a great deal more frequent than many of us like.

It is a fact that if we set up sloppy legislation which gives powers that are too far-ranging, we are responsible. It's no excuse to say, "We were told by the Minister that he wouldn't use the excessive powers that an Act gave him." Here, where we're dealing with the future security of many people who have no other way of protecting themselves against the future, I believe we have to do a great deal more than this bill would suggest.

At a later date we have to write into it guarantees dealing with the type of corporation that could be the recipient of pension moneys. Mr. Speaker, we trust that the Government itself will be amending this bill along those lines. We don't think that's a question of principle and therefore we'll vote for it at this time. But we certainly hope that amendments will be forthcoming, which the Government itself will bring forward or, if not, will support when they come from the Opposition, dealing with the guarantees that are necessary for civil servants.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Madam Speaker, frankly I'm surprised that the Premier wants this kind of freedom to invest the funds. I think it's kind of fun to play with other people's money. But this is one of the bills where the Premier is now beginning to play with his own money. I find that a little more surprising. Obviously, some of his pension money could be controlled in this bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Well, that's possible but that's an assumption I'm prepared to make.

It also indicates to me some underlying fundamental assumptions in this bill. One of them is that the Minister of Finance indicates rather clearly that inflation is not likely to be controlled, either in Canada or by this Government. For those reasons he feels that equity is necessary in these funds to keep up with inflation. As a number of other speakers have said earlier, when you begin to get into equity funds, so often what goes up goes down. Often when it goes down, it goes down with a great deal more speed than it went up. I'm surprised that bonds and such other securities in blue-chip corporations, which in the past have been considered as adequate for security, will now be by-passed in the opportunity to invest in corporations.

It's a rather serious bill. I'm frankly quite concerned about the responsibility of the funds of the people that will be invested in that section of this bill.

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

MR. McGEER: Madam Speaker, as the former speakers in our party have indicated, we support most of the provisions of this bill. But there is this one section which, through you, we draw once again to the attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall).

This is the section which permits the people's pension funds to be invested in the capital stock of any corporation. I agreed wholeheartedly with the remarks of the former Premier, Madam Speaker. I did find them a little hard to listen to because it was he who came into this House advocating that this same fund be used to purchase stock in a corporation. It was a particular corporation, a favourite of the Premier — the Bank of British Columbia.

Questions by the former Leader of the Opposition and now Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) clearly showed that the pension fund was used to support the market price of the Bank of British Columbia shares. When they started to slip on the

[ Page 2394 ]

market, the Minister of Finance bought the shares up and kept the price high.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was shocked to have the former Premier, the man who introduced this scheme of using pension funds to invest in the stock of a corporation, now standing up and saying it was wrong. He was right in Opposition but wrong in Government.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says that there's a big difference. Well, Madam Speaker, what happened is what bothers me most about this particular section and the legislation. That is, the Minister of Finance used the civil servants' superannuation fund — the now Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of Finance — to support a corporation that was his favourite. In other words, there was favoritism and prejudice in the investment of other people's money.

I'm sure that the Minister of Finance thought at that time that he was making a sound investment on behalf of the people. But the fact remains that at that particular juncture, the Bank of British Columbia, as an investment, was the least attractive of any bank stock in Canada. Whatever ambitions any of us might have had for that particular corporation, strictly as an investment, it was the poorest of the bank stocks to purchase.

MR. FRASER: That was the Liberals' fault…

MR. McGEER: Well, all I want the Member to agree on with me, Madam Speaker, is that it was a poor investment for banks. If the government is in a position of investing pension funds, then it is apt to use political considerations rather than economic ones in the choice of the investment.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

I don't believe that is acceptable even for surplus funds from consolidated revenue but it is certainly unacceptable as far as pension funds are concerned. These aren't surplus funds; they are moneys, Mr. Speaker, given to the government in trust. They are the contributed funds of people who are servants and are allowed to speak out politically when abuses of their contributions might be contemplated. Who knows that better than the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who got fired for making political statements when he was a civil servant.

If the people who are the contributors of the civil servants' superannuation fund were to speak out in criticism of the Government, then, of course, they could be fired. So how can they defend the rights of their money? They can't.

You don't see this kind of provision in the teachers' pension fund; you'd better believe there would be a howl if it appeared there. No, you take the civil servants'. You're going to use their money.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose of all the people on the Government side, the one who disappoints me most for allowing this kind of bill to reach the floor is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was formerly Leader of the Opposition. He could see so clearly when he was in Opposition how wrong it was for the civil service superannuation fund to be used to prop up an investment that was the favourite of the Government. He saw it so clearly that he led the investigation as to exactly how many shares had been purchased by the Government to prop the price up with the contributed funds of those poor civil servants who cannot speak out on their own behalf.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, no sooner does he become a Member of the Government than he abandons all his principles and brings in a section that is even worse than what the former government had.

Well, we'll see if he votes against the bill, if he shows the same watch-dog determination in Government that he used to show when he was a tiger on the Opposition benches. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, a man becoming a tabby cat when he crosses and gets into the warmth of power, but I hate to see a man lose his principles in the process. Warm yourself at the fire, yes, but don't abandon the great principles that you developed over 20 years. You can't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that there are any great principles in section 15 of that bill.

All that it tells us is that the Government is going to have its favourites for investment — just like every government will have its favourites for investment. And Mr. Speaker, the Government is going to have the darndest favourites. They are all big losers. The justification made on the floor of the House for these purchases are never economic reasons. It isn't that these are great growth corporations that we just have to get a share in because the value is going to go up many, many fold. That is never the argument; it is always: "We have to save some jobs. We have got to protect a community." We have to back a loser.

However desirable it may be from a social point of view, it's lousy economics and it's a lousy investment policy. Mr. Speaker, when the Government has lousy investment policies, I hate to see the people's pension funds being included in that. Naturally we want to see increasing benefits to the civil servants before the fund is gone. While it is there, let them have a chance at it.

I have to go farther than the former Premier saying go slow in this method of investing the proceeds of this fund in the stock of any corporation. I say stop it

[ Page 2395 ]

altogether. Think a little bit about what you are opening the door towards doing. You always think your decisions are so good when you are in Government. The former government did, you did, if we were government we would think the same way. We would be certain that whatever corporations we were investing in were the best corporations possible. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Make up your mind.

MR. McGEER: Not this way. I think that if some of these former Members of the Opposition with former great principles would sit and think about what they are doing a little bit, even if they considered their own judgment is infallible while in office, maybe the judgment of those who follow after won't be so infallible. The safeguards should be there for a less able government than this one, if at the end of your term it proves that such a thing is possible.

Mr. Speaker, something has been lost by these people who sat on the Opposition side and now find themselves in power — no more completely demonstrated than by the late, lamented Opposition Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan). The great thing that has been lost, Mr. Speaker, is principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): With respect to some of the comments made on Bill No. 159, I should refer the Hon. Members to chapter 49 of the Statutes of Canada: An Act to Establish the Canada Development Corporation. I will just briefly refer to two sections which have a direct relation to this superannuation Act here, and how many are used.

First of all, the section I wish to refer to is section 7(l)(2), which indicates what power the development corporation has. It has powers to invest in securities or shares of any class issues by any corporation with share capital incorporated under the laws of Canada or any province.

Part 11 of the Act, section 35(l), states that the federal government can participate from time to time in subscribing and purchase for holding of any shares for the Government of Canada in the development corporation any may enter into any agreement for the purchase of such shares.

Now the reason I outline that situation to the House is that if you examine the liability side of the balance sheet as of March 31, 1971, section 17, the increase in the amounts owing to Government of Canada employees was $1.6 billion during the year while the total increase in Government of Canada debt obligations, section 23, was $2.6 billion.

My contention is that the cash flow from employee contributions is a highly significant and unrecognized contributor to the financing of the activities of our senior government through general revenue; in other words, through such things as the Canada Development Corporation which is permitted to invest in any capital stock of any corporation. In other words, the Canadian government has been doing this for years.

MR. McGEER: Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I find it extraordinary that the Member who strayed quite a way off the bill himself now objects if another Member wishes to stray back.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the point is this: by looking at that, we find that not only is the investment of the Canada Development Corporation financed through pension funds, in effect, that the Canada Development Corporation is not restricted in any way in its investments. That's only a minor situation when we consider other areas of the federal government and in other provinces in their investments.

It's also been brought to my attention that in 1964 there was the first direct equity deal for both the CNR pension fund and the Air Canada Fund. The CNR fund which now amounts to $1,000 million is invested one-third in bonds, one-third in equities and one-third in mortgages and real estate. This has been going on for some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MR. LAUK: Real estate. Listen to what I'm saying and you'll find out what I'm talking about. I refer also to a situation which exists in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. I just happened to find this Toronto Globe and Mail article of April 5 of this year:

"Common shares of Consolidated Bathurst Limited of Montreal jumped 87 cents."

They go on to say why. There was an exchange and a deal made, and the interesting paragraph for the Hon. Members is as follows:

"The Company made the swap with the Quebec Deposit and Savings Fund, according to investment industry sources, the fund that handles investments of the Quebec Pension Plan."

Isn't that interesting? And that's been going on in that province and in other provinces for a great many

[ Page 2396 ]

years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: The Liberal government in Quebec and the Liberal government in the federal House, Mr. Speaker. The point that was made, Mr. Speaker, is this — and I think it is a good point made by the Member for South Okanagan: the boom and recession fluctuation and the corrective market changes that are anticipated are anticipated by the Government side of the House, and it will be taken into consideration in investing. It's ridiculous to say that they will not be because they will be.

In effect then, this situation in British Columbia is being brought into line with investment practices of pension funds in other jurisdictions.

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

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I've listened carefully, and of course the majority of the debate dealt with the amendment to one section regarding the ability now for the government to invest these funds into a wider range of investments. Let me first say to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) I will arrange to have duplicated the explanatory notes and the second reading notes of the four bills to all Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reject absolutely the speech from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I had to control myself a little when listening to him. First of all, the premise he makes right off the bat was that we wouldn't have dared to do this to anybody else. Mr. Member, read the bills please. Every single pension plan contains this selfsame amendment, including the teachers' plan, and was received unanimously by the members on the negotiating committee of those plans. If that's the level of research that's going on, again I say, for the second sitting day on the run, it's a pretty penny we may be wasting over there.

Secondly, he talks about principle. Mr. Speaker, this party has engaged in elections since 1933 in which we have said unequivocally that we will put the savings of the people to work for the benefit of the people that live in the province and in the country. If that's not what this amendment does, I don't know what it does. Sanctimonious cant, Mr. Speaker, we heard from that Member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the second remark, that was completely inaccurate again, was from the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who again is so frequently absolutely dead wrong when he rises to speak on a bill. He mentions that we will be playing with our own money and made some slighting reference to the Premier. He doesn't appear to know that there's an MLAs pension plan which is not amended in this session, and that's where the money that he refers to is found.

I will say however, that the remarks made by the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) will be taken seriously. They were delivered in a spirit of cooperation, delivered in a spirit of constructive criticism to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that there are many restrictions placed upon the investments of this government in terms of scrutiny, in terms of observance, in terms of the ability of the Opposition to ask and make all the political heat and effect they may. There is the question period, there are questions to the Ministers. I'm quite prepared to table at the beginning of every session a list of the investments in the capital stocks from the pension fund.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that now we have an active Treasury Board. You may read the Audit Act and find out what their duties consist of. That's in complete counterdistinction to the somnolent Treasury Board which obviously occupied the Treasury benches in the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention…and I want to make this absolutely clear because the spreading of doom and gloom of the opposition is getting me absolutely fed up — those Members who want to go around spreading death and doom and failure…let me say that section 14 of the Civil Service Superannuations says we "guarantee every pension fund in this province." So don't ever suggest that the money will go away down the drain.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HALL: Humbug. Mr. Speaker, I call the question on the second reading of this bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 159 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COLLEGE PENSION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: An Act to Amend the College Pension Act contains a number of the similar provisions. It's a bill, one of four, to bring into effect this Government's policy of moving forward on a broad front. These policies will again be implemented in the same way as I mentioned in Bill 159.

The provisions of the College Pension Act have always been very similar to the college funding provisions of the Teachers' Pensions Act, as many of

[ Page 2397 ]

the faculty members of the colleges were contributors to the Teachers' Pensions Act immediately before their appointments to college faculties.

For active contributors, the bill provides improvements for everyone by reducing the average period from seven to five years. Early retirement has been made more attractive. The bill provides for one half of the pensioner's premiums to be paid out of the employer contributions for those pensioners who elect coverage on the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, to speak of the same broad amendments to death benefits, the disability provisions are provided in this bill.

Portability is again covered, because this bill provides for complete portability of pension benefits for employees moving from one sector to another within British Columbia. This principle will be extended to other jurisdictions if they are willing to provide full portability on a reciprocal basis, and Mr. Speaker, the investment provisions have been broadened to conform with the changes contained in Bill 74 amending the Revenue Act.

We are determined to ensure that employees who provide dedicated and essential service in this province receive retirement income commensurate with their length of service and its value to the future development of the province. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 160 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 161 is An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act. One of four, this is the third. The amendments in this bill include substantial improvements in pension benefits for contributors, former contributors and their beneficiaries. For the pensioners, the increases will range from 3 per cent for 1971 retirees to, in steps of 3 per cent per year, a maximum increase of 66 per cent for those who retired in 1950 and earlier.

The previous increases were designed to compensate for the deficiencies in the original pension formula in effect when the allowance was granted.

This is the first increase, Mr. Speaker, which has been designed to offset the erosion in purchasing power which pensioners have suffered as a result of changes which have taken place in wages and prices since their retirement. For active contributors, the bill provides improvements for everyone by reducing the average income period from seven to five years. Retirement has been made more attractive and the vesting period is reduced from 20 to 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant principles incorporated in this bill is gain the provision for complete portability for employees moving from one public sector to another. This principle will be extended to other jurisdictions if they are willing to provide full benefits and full portability on a reciprocal basis. Mr. Speaker, the provisions are broadened as far as investments are concerned to conform with Bill No. 74 amending the Revenue Act. I move second reading of Bill No. 161.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment and that's in reference to the provincial guarantee of the pension funds. A guarantee is no good if the money goes down the drain. There's no amount of fishing that will ever get it back. I say once again that while you may invest only in blue-chip corporations at this point, no one knows what kind of a corporation that's going to be tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. I caution once again, Mr. Speaker, that that money, once it's lost, is lost, and all you can do is continue to pour money after the money that's already gone.

I'd remind the House once again that we do have amendments on the order paper to change these bills and to bring back some form of guaranteed security with regard to investments.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again that what I said is completely correct — the pension is guaranteed.

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

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 161 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 162 is An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act. This is the fourth bill which will bring into effect these common policies I've mentioned this last little while. The amendments in this bill are practically identical to the increases provided for retired civil

[ Page 2398 ]

servants, the only difference being the calendar year which is used in one compared to the fiscal year used in the other.

In 1971 relatively large increases for both pensioners and active contributors were provided by increased employer and employee contributions. Accordingly, the increases provided in this bill are primarily to compensate for the change in the cost of living since 1971.

For active contributors the bill provides improvements for everyone by reducing the averaging period from seven to five years on the same basis as the changes in the other plans. The bill includes a provision for one-half of the pensioner's premium to be paid out of the employer contributions for those pensioners who elect coverage by the Medical Services Plan of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the bill brings into effect a uniform contribution rate of 6 per cent of salary for all employees on the same basis as in the other plans. This increase is 0.5 per cent of salary. The changes also made it possible to bring into effect complete portability on a reciprocal basis with the various other public plans in B.C. Pensions will no longer be an important consideration for employees moving from one sector of the public service to another.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the other progressive moves, such as maximum contributory service, early retirement, portability and death benefits have been incorporated in these amendments as in the other three Acts.

The application of the Act will also now apply to the Vancouver Museum and Planetarium Association, the UBCM and the Band Council established under the Indian Act of Canada with respect to service employees who are employed by band councils.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the investment provisions have been broadened to conform with the changes in the Revenue Act.

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

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

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately I did not hear the substance of all the Hon. Minister's remarks this afternoon, but he has referred two or three times in his assessments upon these bills to the fact of this guarantee. I'd just like to ask him, if he wouldn't mind, for my interest and I think for the interest of all people in the province, to thoroughly explain what this guarantee is and what it consists of.

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

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'd simply refer to the question of section 14, for instance, of the Civil Service Superannuation Act which guarantees 4 per cent. It is currently being worked at five for a number of civil servants under section 14(2)(b), if my memory serves me correctly. That kind of illustration, I think, serves better.

Indeed, if the Hon. Members want to have a debate about these amendments that are in line with Bill No. 74, which has already received second reading, let's have it at that time. I call the question.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 162 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Labour?

HON. MR. BARRETT: 33. You remember that one.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, this would probably be better known as "The Repeal of the Gaglardi Amendment," which really related to the legislation under Bill 49. However, since we tabled the legislation there was an appeal procedure through the courts on the Cowlishaw case and it's now been indicated in the judgment of that case that we must build into the Act, specifically, the requirements for an appeal procedure. Amendments will be tabled, I think, tomorrow which will include this. But basically this takes away the discretion of the Minister, which…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that if we are being promised amendments, it might be wise simply to adjourn this.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to adjourn the debate?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am suggesting it be adjourned, Mr. Speaker. The promise of amendments has been put before us. They apparently are coming very soon. We could perhaps have the bill tomorrow or some other day this week.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2399 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The trouble is I don't know whether I've said enough or not. The Minister and you both agree, Mr. Premier — is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Move the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, speaking in favour of the suggestion that I put forward, I would like to move that debate on this bill be adjourned until such time as amendments are prepared.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE ADOPTION ACT

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this is really a bill. There are some changes in respect to the age of majority and other legislation has been passed before on this. It's complementary legislation.

The only other thing is the adoption of adults. I was a little curious about this myself. It appears that you sometimes have situations where children are living with people other than their parents — grandparents and relatives. When they're past the age of majority sometimes those guardians wish to have them be able to get some kind of inheritance from them.

Since 1970 there have been 29 such cases. They have not come before the Superintendent of Child Welfare because it has not been practice, We are just tidying it up by making it so that there is no need to report this kind of adoption to the Superintendent of Child Welfare.

I would move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister. The age 19, which certainly in this province is the age of majority for most purposes, has already been amended a short time ago, at least in principle by us, in terms of medical treatment. This age of 19 is out of line with voting provisions in other provinces as well as federally.

The question I'd like to put to the Minister is: what efforts is he making to have the age of majority in this province lowered from 19 to 18, at least to bring it into line with the rest of Canada?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Member is mixing two things. We're talking about the age of majority; you're talking about the voting age.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, this is really just complementary legislation to the previous changes. I don't know at this moment what we're doing about the other question that you asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 40 be read a second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 40 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting. after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. I 11, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, apart from more housekeeping changes, I refer the Members to the provision in there which ensures that children who are apprehended will be separated from adult criminals. We have asked that this be done very specifically now. Obviously we do have to make arrangements about this kind of housing but we've brought it into legislation.

The main thrust of the bill deals with the dissolution of Children's Aid societies by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is in keeping with the policy that we announced on February 16 in the Capital Regional District. We are going to take over the administration of all of the services — both children's services and welfare. In order to do this we need to take over the duties and functions of the Children and Family Service in Victoria. Therefore we are seeking this amendment.

I would move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on Bill No. 111? The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'd call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. I I I referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
FARMERS' LAND-CLEARING ASSISTANCE ACT

[ Page 2400 ]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, really the most obvious change in this is the change in the name of the legislation. The importance of this is to indicate to the farming community that under this particular authority we want to be able to do other things for farmers than has been the case under the old Farmers Land-clearing Assistance Act, which was limited specifically to land-clearing and drainage.

It is now proposed that under this Act we'll do other things, such as irrigation. We mentioned before that one of the things that could be done would be to replant orchards. Anything in the way of long-range improvements to land itself will now be considered under this legislation. Beyond that, the amount of money available is being increased by order-in-council from $7,000 up to $15,000. It's a more reasonable amount of money in view of today's prices.

Beyond that again, in the past we've been very particular as to who might do the work. It has now been relaxed to the point where a farmer might even be able to do it with his own equipment and thereby be able to get a lot more work done than he would otherwise.

As far as the legislation itself is concerned, it's a matter of changing the name and indicating to the farming community that under this authority we want to be able to do a good deal more than has been the case in the past. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to this bill, I just want to say that the Act as we knew it, as the Farmers Land-clearing Assistance Act, was certainly a tool that was used by a great many farmers in the Peace River country. As the Minister of Agriculture knows, in the last 20 years approximately half a million acres of new farmland have come into production as a result of the clearing operations that went on in the Peace River area. Without the financing that was available under the Farmers Land-clearing Assistance Act that would have been impossible.

I'm glad to see that the Act is now being broadened to allow consideration of other types of endeavours for loans under the Act. I'm also glad to see that in the interpretation of the Act the farmer himself may be allowed to become his own contractor, in effect, and do the improvements himself. This was always a bit of a contentious issue in that the contractors had to be certified. Quite often the farmers felt that they could have done a better job of the particular work themselves, whatever it might have been. If they have the equipmento they should be able to use their own equipment and therefore probably get more work done for the money available to them.

We're pleased to see that there is an increase in the amount of money that will be available. Really, I think all this does is reflect the increased costs of any endeavour involving the use of equipment, machines or labour today. So we would welcome the amendments to the Act. Certainly the new definition is acceptable. We would support and commend the Minister for the amendments to this Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on Bill 36? The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I call for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 36 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 108, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE STOCK BRANDS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not just sure why it's happened but it seems that in the past year the ranchers have been having a little more trouble with rustling than they have in previous years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, so I'm led to believe. Anyway, this particular legislation is designed to close some of the loopholes that have made it easier for individuals to get away with other people's livestock.

In the definition of "stock" there's reference to sheep and swine, which have not been there previously. So the owners of sheep and swine will also be protected by the stockdealer's bond. It's difficult to discuss this legislation without really getting into the section-by-section business. The amount of the bond itself is increased, because we felt there wasn't sufficient protection in the Act for it.

There's more control of the operators of slaughterhouses; more provision for inspection of the livestock at the time of slaughter, again with a view to making sure that it does belong to the person represented as owning it.

I think that discussion of this would be much more profitable in the committee stage, Mr. Speaker. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-

[ Page 2401 ]

Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, over the history of the Brand Act — and it's a long, long history — the livestock industry incessantly asked for amendments and more amendments. The Act today is very much changed from the original Act. Of course, conditions too have changed to necessitate bringing in some of the measures today.

For example, the form of transportation has changed. At one time they were driven on the hoof to the rail and loaded on a railcar, which went to its destination. Today they can be loaded on a truck, a part load put on. Then they can be moved on to another loading point where more cattle are put on. They can also be loaded off. It's made it much more difficult for the officials to properly police the industry and also to enforce the Brand Act.

I regret to say this because I have been a livestock producer over the years. Under the terms of the Brand Act I've been a brand inspector. In fact, I haven't checked lately, but I haven't had notice of my appointment being, rescinded. I might still be a brand inspector.

I think the greatest failing of all probably is the very fact that the industry itself doesn't do enough policing and is not ready to give information. Had this not been the case in the past, we would have had many more convictions. We would have stopped the petty rustling and so on, certainly where branded stock are.

It's a little more difficult down on the lower mainland and over here on Vancouver Island. Under the Stock Brands Act it's not compulsory to brand stock. It's only for your own protection. Unfortunately, there are many instances right here on the island and also on the lower mainland where unbranded stock have been picked up in the field. 'Because of the nature of the animals — they're pretty much domesticated — they can be handled on foot. They have been loaded onto trucks and taken away.

I don't think we will ever have proper control of the pilfering of animals until such time as the industry itself is prepared to do some of its own enforcing of the law by being prepared to give information and by being prepared to notify the authorities at the earliest possible moment — not two weeks after. Also, where there is hunting and animals are killed and the hind quarters taken, the information should be put in the hands of the proper authorities at the earliest possible moment.

All the police in the world will not stop this pilfering of livestock without the cooperation and assistance of the livestock producer himself. The official Opposition is in support of the bill. I just hope that these amendments can, be of assistance to the livestock industry. But unless the industry itself changes its attitude and is prepared to give information, I'm a little inclined to believe that these are just so many more amendments to what we've had in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate on Bill 108? The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to take anything at all away from the remarks of the House Leader of the Opposition. But often, and I'm sure he's well aware of this as well, the trail has grown quite cold by the time the rancher knows that his stock has either disappeared or been butchered and only in part removed. Especially in certain seasons of the year, it may be quite some time before he even knows. By then, they just feel that there isn't much point in reporting it. Unfortunately, indeed there isn't much point.

However, I think it's an improvement on what has been in the past. Certainly it's something that the people in the industry are seeking. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 108 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 130.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1968

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. 130 is to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act to provide a truly impartial and representative review board to which appeals may be made from decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

The present board of review and the situation in the past has been one where the review boards were composed of an independent chairman and such other employees of the Workmen's Compensation Board as the board saw fit from time to time to select. So workmen have consistently expressed the opinion that the present boards of review are not impartial and working men generally have lost confidence in their ability to receive an independent and unbiased review.

From our observations of the Unemployment Insurance Act since its inception, it's clear that the Act itself and its operations have come under criticism, but the review panels have been generally well accepted. Their adjudications have not only provided an impartial final adjudication for claimants, but they have appeared to be impartial and have been

[ Page 2402 ]

accepted on that basis. the Workmen's Compensation Board as the board saw fit from time to time to select. So, I think, will go far to not only provide impartiality in dispensing justice, but to fulfil the old adage that justice must not only be done but must seem to be done.

I think by divorcing the representatives of our appeal tribunal from any association with the Workmen's Compensation Board, then the worker can rest assured that he is indeed receiving an impartial and independent appraisal of his case.

This is the basic purpose of the amendment. I think that it's something that's long overdue. I think it's something that will relieve many of the longstanding Workmen's Compensation cases that have been appealed to various government representatives and Opposition MLAs after every course and every avenue of appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board has been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation and would just like to commend the Minister on taking the initiative in providing an improved vehicle whereby workmen can receive their due consideration.

I've had many calls and complaints from the workers in my constituency who feel that they have to work quite hard in order to get consideration when they are dependent on a decision, as a result of their accidents, about their livelihood. I think that we should reverse the pendulum in this regard and start to protect workmen and give them the benefit of the doubt where there is a questionable situation, simply because they are the backbone of society.

I realize that we are going to have people who will take advantage of the situation because any time there is a loophole or a little gap left uncovered we run the risk of people figuring out ways of getting something for nothing. But I think that that has to be the chance we take when it comes to people.

There are many people out there who haven't had the expertise to take advantage of the law, and haven't been able to get the support they need. They have really been left high and dry. They need protection and I think it has to come from a Ministerial position. It has to come through this department. We should set the trend, and not leave it up to these people to prove their needs beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where there is doubt, I think we have to just concede that.

We're prepared to recognize the need for a guaranteed income; we're prepared to recognize the need for people to have a minimum protection under unemployment insurance schemes; and we seem to be aware of the needs in terms of social assistance — old age pensioners and so forth. But when a workman, through no fault of his own — or maybe it was through a fault of his own through maybe unsafe practices on the job — nonetheless he should have the same opportunity to survive. I don't think we should take a punitive attitude — one of punishment and make it so difficult.

I have seen old people come back who have had accidents, workmen who have had accidents, up to five or 10 or 15 years ago and who are still trying to get redress, and they're starting to find it difficult because of their ailments. Some of these ailments don't come down right away. They take time to develop, especially when it comes to deterioration of the joints and this kind of thing.

I think that we should take the attitude that people have to have so much capital to survive in this society. And when we know for a fact that individuals depend on income from an insurance scheme, where such as the Workmen's Compensation Board would be responsible for approving or not approving, that we should take the lead.

I support the legislation. I would like to see us take this attitude in all fields where people have a livelihood to be concerned about.

Could I just take a moment, Mr. Speaker, and also welcome a group of students from The New School in Vancouver, under the supervision of Mr. Daryl Sturdy and colleagues. We usually get secondary students. I think these students were about 10 or 11 years of age, maybe younger. But the unique thing about them is their independent school — and you know the problems we are having in trying to be fair with all of the educational institutions, especially the ones that don't come directly under the responsibility of the government.

But I have attended this school and I have met some of the young people there. I know this instructor particularly. I know that if you gave them half a chance every one of them would be down here participating in this debate right now, because they are not up-tight, not that group.

However, I would like to ask the assembly to join me in welcoming them. I hope that they will return again someday as Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I guess all the new MLAs — at least some of the new MLAs who hadn't had a very close relationship with the Workmen's Compensation Board or who hadn't been hurt on various construction or logging or other jobs that they had taken — were inundated in September and October by compensation cases,

[ Page 2403 ]

probably some of them chronic. We felt pretty well mystified in those early months of becoming an MLA as to just what was happening here.

One of the first things I did was to go and spend all afternoon at the Workmen's Compensation Board, trying to understand some of the processes and certainly meet some of its top staff people and try to maintain an objective viewpoint.

But certainly the appeal process seemed to be really in question when doctors in Maple Ridge and Mission and specialists in Abbotsford kept firing letters my way that certainly seemed to suggest to me that there had to be some kind of independent body, independent from the board who had already made the initial decision, that surely this legislation which we're dealing with this afternoon could not come any faster than it has now.

It always amazed me that the medical people who I would think were objective, who knew the patient over a long period of time and who also, Mr. Speaker, knew enough about the history of the patient to know whether a particular injury had been experienced on that job or not and therefore was compensatable, surely their input was reliable. So I am very glad that now there will be an independent group of people, independent from the people who presumably made the first decision, who can, I hope, in a just and honest way deal with these cases.

I also get the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Workmen's Compensation Board is paying its way as an autonomous, independently funded commission. Presumably, even if you look at the extravagant Christmas cards, Mr. Member, that were sent out, and which incidentally were very strongly criticized by some of the independent people in my riding as a rather extravagant expenditure — surely they have the money to carry out this further service. I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too are happy to see the Workmen's Compensation Act being amended to provide some opportunity for questioning of decisions made by the Workmen's Compensation Board.

If we have any hesitation in expressing approval of this Bill 130, it is because of the rather clumsy procedures that there are for review. It is kind of like a merry-go-round, The board makes a decision, and then you go to a board of review from that decision, and that board of review makes its decision, advises the board of that decision, and that board considers the decision made by the review board and maybe changes its mind. If that doesn't happen, then either the organized group of workmen or the employers or the individual appellant himself can go back to the board.

All this raises in my mind some question as to the wisdom of appeal procedures when the board that makes the initial decision is deemed to be in error and in fact ends up by being its own court of appeal. I just happen to think that runs counter to any usual or acceptable appeal arrangements.

If the board can be found to be in error, it seems to me that a competent review panel should have some supreme authority over the board itself and that the decisions of the appeal should be binding upon the board. But to merely provide a new panel which may be an escape mechanism — I say "may" because it needn't be — which appears to give to the person aggrieved by the decision of the board a second opportunity to discuss it with somebody else and then to thrust either the review panel or the same individual back before the board again, raises questions in my mind as to how acceptable the appeal provision might be.

I really think that what is needed more than anything in the operations of the Workmen's Compensation Board is a changed attitude on the part of the board itself. Now whether the Minister through this bill will be able to bring that about or not, I am not sure.

The board has for too long been a law unto itself, and every Member who has tried in any way to get reconsideration has found that the board is pretty rigid in its attitudes so far as reconsideration is concerned. In the hopes that this new appeal procedure will help to undo some of these rigid attitudes, we will support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate? The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I would just like to point out to him that a decision of a claims officer is a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board and the review panel is quite free to have an appeal placed before it where a claims officer has adjudicated a case and turned it down. Similarly, a worker may wish to appeal his case after the review panel to the Workmen's Compensation Board. He is free to do that providing the decision of the review panel was not unanimous.

To make the review panel supreme over the Workmen's Compensation Board would pose some pretty serious implications in many other ways. But it's not anticipated that decisions of the impartial tribunal of review would be upset in many cases by the Workmen's Compensation Board. That extra avenue is left open to a worker, where he disagrees with the final adjudication of the review panel, to proceed one step further and make his final appeal to the Workmen's Compensation Board. In those cir-

[ Page 2404 ]

cumstances that would be where the decision of the review panel had opposed or had gone against the appeal of the worker, So, it's hardly a restrictive mechanism as far as the worker is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I do, believe that this, is indeed a step in, the right direction; certainly it's not an end-all and be-all in terms of reviewing the Workmen's, Compensation Act. As I indicated on many occasions over the past number of months, a more comprehensive review of the entire Act will be taking place over the course of the next few months. In the interim, I think, this is an essential step that does provide basis for impartial reappraisal for workers in the province, and I commend it to second reading, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 130 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 152, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

HON. MR. KING: This, Mr. Speaker, is a bill to put some additional teeth in the Payment of Wages Act. It's a bill that will require directors and officers of companies to bear some responsibility and some liability for non-payment of wages. The experience of my department over the past number of years has been, much to their chagrin, that many valid claims for non-payment of wages have been non-enforceable because of the practices of some companies in setting up various dummy corporations, dummy companies, paying the wages of workers under one company and simply hiring them under another.

This type of thing has gone on, and the net result has been that when the workers went to move under the Payment of Wages Act to collect unpaid wages, there was simply no way of enforcing the legislation and the people who had operated the, company had conveniently escaped or filed bankruptcy. There were no assets left against which action could be taken, to recover wages.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, plugs some of those loopholes that existed under the previous Act and makes companies, I submit, more responsible for their obligation to pay workers wages. I move second reading of the bill.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This party supports Bill No. 152 which is an added attraction to collecting wages for workers. We believe in the principle that a worker's wages should have first charge against any corporation and that they should be fully protected. It is another method that is being pursued to ensure that wages are protected, From my experience as Minister of Labour for a short period of time, I did see ways and means that people were utilizing to evade paying wages to workmen in the province.

This legislation has brought on added protection and will be supported by this party.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Could the Minister tell us, when he is summarizing the debate, if he would be personally responsible for wages under the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act if that were to go bankrupt, Mr. Speaker?

MR., SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that practices have been allowed to develop in this province where workmen have found it impossible to recover wages which were properly due to them and a change should be made in the law. But I have some doubt in my mind as to whether or not the liability of directors or officers of a corporation should be spelled out in such broad terms as the Minister has in this bill.

He spoke of companies which might go bankrupt, but I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that that limiting factor is not in the legislation. It may be that we will have amendments on the order paper in committee in which some of these problems can be cleared up.

The one aspect that the Minister didn't deal with and which has caused so much general comment is the following section. I won't refer to it by number, but it is the question of associated and related people in the trade. The words in the statute seem to be very broad and all encompassing. From some of the comments made by the Minister in the Press it would seem to me that he does not deem them to be as all encompassing as they might be.

It has even been suggested that officers of a school district might themselves be responsible for the non-payment of teachers' wages. I don't for a moment believe this to be the case. Because such suggestions have been made the breadth of scope which the words permit must be clear to all Members.

I would ask the Minister if he would indicate, in closing this debate, what he intends to convey, certainly in the area of associated or related activities in business.

[ Page 2405 ]

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

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the Members to appreciate in the first instance that only those employers who fail to pay wages to their workers run afoul of the provisions of this bill. In the first instance, reputable companies which are responsible for their debts and their wages to the workers certainly have nothing to fear from this legislation.

I might point out in response to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that one of the explanatory notes in the bill is somewhat unfortunate and I have moved to have that particular reference changed. That is the explanatory note which refers to employer associations. There is no intent and there is, in fact, no legal force in this bill which would make employer groups such as construction labour relations associations or employers organizations which have been formed for the purposes of collective bargaining and so on bound under the provisions of this bill. I would suggest that the same would be the situation with respect to school boards and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 152 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 153, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR
EMPLOYMENT ACT

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 153, the Public Works Fair Employment Act replaces the previous legislation, the Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act. In that previous legislation the Minister of Labour was empowered to arbitrarily set wages and conditions of employment in the area of public works when a dispute arose. In line with the policy of this Government, the best way in which relationships can be satisfactorily developed between employers and their employees is through collective bargaining and further, I think, we have an obligation after setting standards of relationships in the private sector to adhere to the principle ourselves and do business with unionized contractors and so on. We found that certainly the most fair way to assure that fair wages and fair conditions did prevail was to require, as a provision of awarding contracts, that a collective agreement be in existence and that the relationship between the employee and the employer be one of free negotiation rather than arbitrary action by the Minister of Labour.

I might point out further, Mr. Speaker, that organizations such as the B.C. Road Builders found themselves at somewhat of a disadvantage in terms of competitive bidding. When an organized company was obliged to bid for a highways department contract or a Hydro contract or whatever against a competitor who was not bound by a collective agreement, certainly their position was jeopardized and they felt that this was very discriminatory. I can only agree with that observation, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that this bill eliminates that discrimination and puts those business enterprises which wish to do business with the government on a fair and equitable basis in terms of bidding for government contracts.

I commend the bill to second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The bill is Public Works Fair Employment Act. It could quite easily be called Public Works Union Enforcement Act. The bill really, in effect, makes the Minister of Labour of British Columbia the chief union organizer of British Columbia. He has made public statements that it is part of his role to ensure that the workers of British Columbia belong to trade unions. I don't see that as his role and I don't think it is the position of the Minister of Labour to take sides. I sometimes wonder where this legislation or the source of this legislation comes from. I think the role of the Minister should be one of neither pro management nor pro labour.

I think that the workers of British Columbia should have some rights, too. They should have the right of free choice. They shouldn't be forced, if they don't want to, into a union against their wishes. That is what is being done by this legislation, because Big Brother Union Government says you must belong or you cannot work on a government contract.

I say that under this legislation the Government has a responsibility to ensure that the workers at least receive the equivalent of union wages but not to force a worker into a trade union against his wishes. I don't think the Government should go beyond the bounds of ensuring that the workers receive the equivalent of union wages.

I recall very well when Justice Nemetz came into the dispute between the IBEW and B.C. Hydro, in which there was a complaint by the IBEW relative to non-union contractors getting involved in the extension of power lines. There was the suggestion that B.C. Hydro should be paying at least the equivalent of union wages to these non-union linemen. When Justice Nemetz brought down his decision on that dispute between the IBEW and B.C. Hydro, he said at

[ Page 2406 ]

that time that any non-union contractor employed by B.C. Hydro should pay the equivalent wages being paid by B.C. Hydro to the IBEW. He didn't say that workers must join the IBEW or join any other union — he just said that they must pay the equivalent wages.

That's what this Public Works Fair Employment Act should say — the government should pay the equivalent and not force people into unions. No longer do you have a free choice in British Columbia if you are going to work on a contract for the government of association. What the legislation does, really, is interfere with individual rights. It is erosion of individual rights and the rights of free choice.

What are we really talking about? I think roughly 10 per cent of the contracts let by government are of a non-union nature. The Minister says we cannot allow this discrimination to take place. What about the discrimination against workers who are non-union? What about the discrimination against the workers who don't want to belong to a union? Certainly I am sure the Minister, when he rises in his place to close the debate, will say, "Well, we have the support of contractors in this respect." Certainly he has the support of the large contractors. They want to add the other 10 per cent to the present 90 per cent of the government work they are doing now, because most large contractors are union. The people you are really putting the bite on are the small contractors in British Columbia — the people you are telling they must have a union or they will no longer get contracts from this government.

There is nothing specifically spelled out in the principle of the Act dealing with day labour. I'm wondering whether it will apply to small contractors that probably own a backhoe or a small tractor or a truck or something that wants to work on a day labour project. Are you going to tell them that they must be union, too? Yes, any small contractor.

When you look at the definition of "public work" and "work" it means the "construction, alteration, maintenance or demolition of any property, whether real or personal, which is paid for, whether directly, indirectly or by way of a guarantee by the Crown in the right of the province or any of its agencies, but does not include a public work."

In my ability to define it — and I'm not a lawyer — that would include a school district. What about the small contractors who take contracts with school districts? What about the little painter in a small community who has the contract to paint a school? What about the small contractor in the smaller communities that might want to put a one-room addition onto the school?

Are you going to say that he no longer has the right to work on that project unless he belongs, or his workers belong, to a union, unless there's a collective agreement? Certainly not. I'm sure you're not saying that. Are you trying to say that every worker in British Columbia should belong to a trade union? Also, what you're going to do is you're going to add costs to government projects. If you can't find a painter in Golden, for instance, who is a union contractor, then you have to go elsewhere. To bring people in from another community costs money. Consequently the price will be that much greater.

So you're adding costs and you're denying workers and contractors at the local level the right of gainful employment. In British Columbia 42 per cent of our labour force is organized. I'm not saying whether that's ample or too little. But you can't deny the fact that we have the greatest percentage of organized workers of any area on the North American continent. Now, by this legislation, the Minister is saying that everybody in British Columbia has to be organized. Everybody in British Columbia must belong to a trade union or else they cannot be employed on a government contract. No, I think that's discrimination and that's the type of legislation that I can't support.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, the Public Works Fair Employment Act, in our opinion, has a number of aspects which we cannot accept.

As has been indicated earlier, there's a question of fairness to the contractors and people involved. I think it's a basic right that anyone paying taxes to the government, anyone who deals with the government honestly in that respect, should have the right to deal with the government in terms of business.

It's a point we've made before. We've made it in terms of tendering. Here we have an extension of that to the point where only those with union contracts will be able to take government work. We're not saying that the government should not have some right to oversee the type of labour-management relations of any firm that deals with the government. That's fair enough. If you're employing them, I think there should be some control in that respect.

But I don't think it's necessary to insist upon a union contract, as is done in this instance. The facts may be that the employer and employees are satisfied with one another's work and the conditions of employment and conditions of work of the employees. Perhaps the rate of pay may be as high or higher as a unionized shop nearby. Perhaps there are social circumstances dealing with family. Things of this nature come up, in particular with small companies. Yet these people, by virtue of this type of legislation, will be denied the right to deal with the government to which they pay taxes.

It's a different thing from a private corporation

[ Page 2407 ]

and perhaps even from a Crown corporation. Here we are dealing with the overall government of all the people of the province to whom everybody, unionized or otherwise, pays taxes. Yet we're making prohibitions and restrictions on who can deal with the government. We don't think that a bill of this nature is going to be particularly successful in forcing people into unions, if that is the objective of it. We don't think that it's going to particularly effective, from the public's point of view, with respect to keeping costs within reason and with respect to some of the problems outlined by my Hon. friend from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) dealing with bringing in employees from other areas.

There is no question of the concern on the part of the government at the unionized figure in the province, which is 42 or 43 per cent. That's fair enough. But we don't see why the government at the same time should be using the public contracts to try to force this figure up. After all, the employees themselves have rights. Surely one of the rights is to decide whether or not they wish to be unionized, whether or not they wish to have union structures in the companies for whom they're working.

It's been said that few contracts are non-union and therefore we're dealing with a relatively small percentage of the overall number of contracts. Yet, we're concerned that once this type of legislation is in, the principle will be extended backwards.

For example, the people who are actually doing the job perhaps have people in offices elsewhere who are doing the paperwork or who are concerned with the work being done in a more peripheral manner. So it may not be just the people who are actually employed, for example, on a contract in this building, Others elsewhere — draftsmen, secretaries — are also working in some way or another on the contract if they're employed by the company.

We have a feeling that while this bill may come in ostensibly simply to deal with those who are on a provincial job, within this building or elsewhere in the province, nevertheless the principle can easily be extended backwards throughout the company concerned — just about as far back as the government of the day would like. In this respect, the extent of unionization could be substantially more than meets the eye in this particular instance.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to vote against this in principle. We cannot see the government taking steps of this nature, restricting the number of people who can benefit by government work to less than 50 per cent of the employable people in the province. We feel this is a form of discrimination against the majority in this case, which is being pushed upon them by a government which itself received less than a majority vote. We feel that it's important as a principle that those who pay taxes, those who act honestly in their dealings with the government in other respects, should be treated equally by the government when it comes to handing out government work.

It's a principle I've made time after time in my references to the purchase of buses by the B.C. Hydro, or by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) for B.C. Hydro. We simply don't feel it's fair that individuals who pay taxes and act as responsible citizens in the Province of British Columbia are, by government decision, denied the right of dealing with their government. In this instance, it may be discrimination in terms of what organizations they belong to, but we see no difference in principle.

[Mr. Dent in the Chair]

If it were discrimination in terms of religion or in terms of race, I think there would rightly be an outcry in this province. In this case of discrimination, which is membership of a certain organization, we think the same principles apply. True, it's an area where the government should have some control over the conditions of work. But we don't think it's necessary, by any matter of means, to have union membership and a contract with a union to guarantee that.

There are extensive powers granted in this particular bill. The Minister, who may or may not be the Minister of Labour, can designate any person in writing to act on his behalf. This person can enter any premises — the same sweeping, broad generalizations giving powers to just about anyone. If that's not enough, section 6 in this Act allows regulations to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to implement further ideas the government may have.

It's a type of legislation which we cannot support because we feel it is basically discriminatory in nature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to the government to know that we also will vote against the principle of this bill. Really that's the key word — "principle."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: You're surprised? Well, let me give the explanation. My whole philosophy is that the individual is more important than the state. There's the answer right there. If one or two or 10 individuals do not wish to be unionized, and they're breaking no law by remaining non-unionized, that is their choice. That's my concept and that's the concept of the Conservative Party, that the individual is greater than the state.

[ Page 2408 ]

Since we're talking, about public works, Mr. Speaker, this is the state. The Public Works department has the whole weight of the state behind it in its decisions of this nature. Now it is bringing in this legislation, which discriminates against people who, of their own free will and obeying all the laws of the province and the nation, want to remain non-unionized. By making that elective choice, they cut themselves off from being able to bid on certain contracts.

Really, Mr. Speaker, with respect, the title of the bill is "Fair Employment Act." I think it should be "Unfair Employment Act" to be more specific. We are, in fact, saying that if people choose not to be members of a union that they then cannot bid or be employed on public works contracts. One needn't go any further than that.

In principle we are opposed to this kind of thing. I'm not even interested in trying to deduce what the Minister's motives might be in introducing this bill. I'm just saying clearly and unmistakably on this bill and every other such kind of bill, such as others we've have in this House, namely automobile insurance, that we believe the individual should have a choice. By this kind of legislation the state is dictating to the individual that in order to get work in certain areas, namely government work, he must join a union. This we just oppose in principle now and always shall.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I enjoy taking part in this particular debate, especially when I hear the statements made on the principle of the bill. I think one of the things we have to refer to, if we have any knowledge of some of the public contracts that have been granted in the past, is the principles of some of the contractors that have been taking the contracts. I know of several in the area that I represent who have a very good habit of changing their names. Just as fast as one gets certified they pop up under a new name and the certification is no longer valid. By the time the third or fourth company is straightened out, the contract's over, the workers were not paid as much as they would have been paid had they had a contract — these were workers who wanted to belong to a union and to have an agreement.

I am particularly interested, as I have mentioned before in this House, in the principle that you must belong to a trade union before you can work. I would like to see the last Member who spoke try to give medical service to anyone in this province if he didn't belong to the medical association. It's absolutely impossible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you state your point of order and would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. WALLACE: We've been round this race track already this season, Mr. Speaker. There is no closed shop. The licensing and the union so-called are two separate organizations in the medical profession.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Kamloops proceed, please?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This is a matter of philosophy, of course. Naturally the big cigar-smoking union bosses tell the workers what to do, but the B.C. Medical Association doesn't tell the doctors what to do. Of course. We've heard this so often before that we don't need to go through it again.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Oh, no. You don't have to join. Try and work if you don't. And the same, of course, applies to our legal profession. Just try to hire a non-union lawyer in this province. You'd look a long way in any province in this country before you could find one.

They talk about closed shops. What they're saying is a union is despicable but an association is not. I would certainly fight this contention at any time, Mr. Speaker. I'll support the bill. I feel it should have come in a long time ago to give these people ordinary justice who are working for contractors. taking public contracts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly glad that the Minister of Labour is wearing the colour shirt he is today when he brings in legislation like this. It's a red shirt and it's "red" legislation so far as I'm concerned.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You had a red shirt last week.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn't introducing legislation like this, I'll tell you, my friend. Legislation like that will never be introduced by this party.

You know, it's too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Government cannot seem to learn anything from the mistakes of others. This type of legislation was introduced in the United States of America some years ago. It created such chaos in the construction industry that last year President Nixon had it thrown out, because it was unworkable. That's why it was thrown out, Mr. Speaker — not because he was told

[ Page 2409 ]

to by the union leaders in the United States — and there are lots of unions in the United States and the unions wield a lot of power in the United States. As a matter of fact our Canadian unions help them to wield more power because we send more money to them every year.

This type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, looks very good on paper. And the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) can stand on his feet and he can talk about justice, but if you dig into this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker this bill that is before us, it's an unjust piece of legislation because it's truly discriminatory.

Small companies, many of them who are enjoying the right to do business in this province, will be put out of business. It's simple arithmetic as to the reasons why.

Many small companies who do not have the financial backing, who do not have the auditors and the lawyers and all of the office help to look after all the forms that they have and so forth, will be told what to do by the union bosses. And you'd better believe it, because that's exactly the way it'll work. As a matter of fact in the United States it was found that some of the union bosses were telling small contractors what jobs they could bid and what jobs they couldn't bid. And they were also telling what union would be in charge of the job, whether it would be the electrical union or the teamsters' union; and this is exactly what happened. That's why the law in the United States had to be thrown out. It wasn't workable.

Now what are we going to do, Mr. Speaker? It's been announced before by many small single individual operators, like a person who owns a backhoe and wants to do some work — is he going to unionize himself? And if he is forced to unionize himself as an individual operator or as an individual trucker, then all he is doing is paying a right to work in the Province of British Columbia. And who is he paying it to? He's paying dues to an international union. And where do the dues go, Mr. Speaker?

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of our small independent contractors and a lot of our small independent businessmen will be o-u-t, out.

I would just like to give you an instance now of a small paving company that was going to do a job on a road. If this legislation comes into force, Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary for that man to have in his paving company four or five different unions — he may have to deal with the teamsters' union, he may have to deal with the steelworkers. If he's got to do ditching and laying of electrical cable before he puts the pavement down, he may be dealing with as many as five or six different unions. Can you see a small paving contractor trying to sort all that out? One would be fighting against the other and it's good-bye; down the flume he goes. Because it's all right for a big contractor — and I don't think there are many jobs in the province where the big contractors aren't unionized. But this is certainly discrimination of the first part, Mr. Speaker.

We just last week discussed a conscience clause that we asked to have put into our labour laws. Certainly if we're ever going to bring in a conscience clause, this is contradictory to that conscience clause. It's the same type of thing. There'd be no sense in bringing in a conscience clause…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. A little more quiet down at the far end, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …because this is against that principle as well. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is looking into the entire labour situation — he says he's looking into the entire situation — then to bring in a bill like this makes me think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour already has a closed mind, before he even starts thinking about looking into it any further.

I sometimes wonder when I see a piece of legislation like this, and particularly this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, if the reason we want everybody to belong to a union in B.C. is so that there'll be more union dues paid into the coffers of the NDP. In other words, if you're going to do business in British Columbia, if the small contractor is going to do any business with the government at all, he's going to pay into their coffers, into their election fund. They take their rip-off first and, as I said before, I don't know where the rest of it goes. No one seems to be able to find out.

The other thing is, Mr. Speaker, that as the Government acquires more companies and gets its finger further into the free enterprise system and into the mining business, the petroleum business, the forest industry, it's going to eventually end up that everybody who wants to do anything in British Columbia has to belong to a union. This is the way we're headed. If you're going to cut down trees in the woods, the government owns the trees so you've got to belong to a union. You won't be able to turn around unless you belong to a union, whether you want to or not. This is the devastating part of this, Mr. Speaker — whether you want to or not.

I sometimes feel that this Government that we have today is merely a pawn for the union bosses, because somebody has told them to do this. I wonder who. It certainly isn't for the good of British Columbia and it certainly isn't for the good, Mr. Speaker, of the individual operator.

I suppose the next step will be that every piece of merchandise that the government buys from any supplier will have to have union clerks. It won't matter what supply you buy, the Government's next step will be to say, "All purchases must be from the

[ Page 2410 ]

union store. This is carrying it to its ultimate.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Car salesmen?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's quite possible too. Everything has to be unionized. All resource industries, and all of the hiring that resource industries do, for instance like the petroleum industry, will have to hire unionized small contractors. To put it a little further, to run it to the ultimate, if you want to hire a cook in a camp on an oil rig, well, the cook is going to have to be — if he and his wife are contracting out — well, they're going to have to belong to the union.

So far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, this act when implemented is really a tax on anybody who wants to work in British Columbia. It's a tax on anybody who wants to have employment in practically any industry in British Columbia. I'm certainly against it. I think it's a big club and it's too big a club for this Government to have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Act is an infringement upon the individual rights of that 60 per cent, or almost 60 per cent, of our labour force that are non-union within the Province of British Columbia. Many of these people are non-union because they choose to be so.

They work for small companies that have worked out a method under which they can give them employment for 12 months a year, rather than just on a basis of just when a contract is available. These people know that at some times they work for less than union scale, but when the company is busy they work for union scale and better than union scale wages. They've accepted some of these things that are an advantage to them because they wish to retain a way of life which does not happen to include belonging to a labour union.

The Government of this province is prepared to collect taxes from anyone who lives in this province irrespective of whether they belong to a labour union or not, and don't ever think that they don't. As long as the Government is going to pick up their revenue from everyone in the province, irrespective of the type of job that they have, who they work for or whether they belong to a union or not, you have no right, Mr. Speaker, to insist that a contract issued by the Government will only go to those contractors who employ union personnel.

You've got a string in the hip pocket of every worker in the province making them dependent upon you as Government whether they choose to belong to a union or not. It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the author of this bill was not the Minister of Labour; someone in the labour union movement that the Minister wishes to appease. It's unfortunate that in an attempt to bow to the pressures of the labour unions in the Province of British Columbia, that Government has stooped to this type of legislation.

There are hundreds of thousands of workers employed in the Province of British Columbia by a multiplicity of non-union companies. Many of these companies do some business with the government at one time or another. On the basis of the contracts that are awarded, it amounts to perhaps 10 per cent — I think the figure was given here — of the contracts awarded to non-union contractors. It collectively provides jobs for a large segment of our population.

The man that services the typewriters in the schools, I suppose now he can't service typewriters any more unless he has a union contract. What about the man that services the furnaces for the school, or contracts out to drive bus for them, or do a multiplicity of jobs that involve funds in one way or another directly or indirectly, or by guarantee from the Crown?

Certainly these people, if you're going to put imposts on them by way of taxation, have a right, Mr. Speaker, to bid for work, to contract out, to be employed on non-contract work that is required by any agency of the Crown. It amazes me that a Government that puts so much stress on the fact that they care for people would bring this type of legislation into the Province of British Columbia. The step is a step in reverse: it's not in keeping with the times or the conditions or the society that we live in, and it's just another peg in the coffin of those people who wish to preserve a little freedom for themselves in the Province of British Columbia. We won't support it, Mr. Speaker.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the Conservative Party has already indicated our broad position. I'll be very brief in making a couple of comments with respect to this bill.

First of all, I think that I have to make it very clear that I've had a few years of negotiations, the business of negotiating with three major unions in British Columbia, and they've been, by and large, very happy times. I speak of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Federation of Peace Officers and the International Association of Firefighters. So I don't need to apologise in any way, shape or form for my relationships over the years with those people who have formed a trade union of one kind or another.

Earlier today we were talking about housing. We

[ Page 2411 ]

heard some wonderful words from the Minister of Finance with respect to incentive for housing and the need for more housing. I would like to point out to the Minister of Labour, through you Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of this Government that one of the major forces — in this area at any rate, and indeed its related organizations in other parts of the province can probably make the same claim — one of the major forces in getting into public housing in a manner that was innovative, inexpensive, imaginative and very, very rewarding to the people who moved into the housing was undertaken by an organization known as the Victoria Home Builders Association.

I believe they have formed in other parts of the province, if not across the country. To my knowledge, most of these home builders, very small firms employing a relatively low number of people, are all non-union. The essence of their contribution in public housing has been through municipalities and in partnership with the two senior governments, provincial and federal.

Now, if I read this bill correctly, these people will be prohibited from participating in any further public housing.

The Minister says "no." Well that's very good news, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, and I will look forward to his remarks when he closes the debate. But certainly they are participating in public money, using public money at the municipal, provincial and federal level.

As I read the legislation, they would be prohibited from further tendering or entering into further propositions with respect to developing that kind of housing. The point that I wanted to make has sparked the Minister's interest, Mr. Speaker, and I'll await his reply.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to this debate it's rather surprising to hear … only the last speaker seemed to realize that there are two benefactors to a collective agreement. This fact certainly isn't lost on most of the contractors in this province.

A good collective agreement works to the benefit of both parties. It's a mutual benefit and a lot of these contractors wouldn't want to work under paternalism and the type of nineteenth century thinking that has been promulgated from the other side of the House. In fact, I know of one contractor who has threatened to pull out of this province, not because of the legislation that we have, but because he's victimized by dummy companies and will be no part of this type of anti-labour practice, A dummy company in the construction industry can be very easily set up. It's difficult to organize a company whose contract might run for perhaps three weeks if it's a subcontractor. It comes in, it does its bit on the job and then it leaves. It hires men and, at least, it's very difficult to organize.

When, maybe after years of effort, a particular construction firm is organized and does become a union contractor, it's very simple, by changing to a very small extent the make-up of the company, to reorganize a new company and a dummy company. Sometimes by setting up an equipment rental firm, the equipment for the company can be shifted either to the dummy company, which is not union, or to the company which is union.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who told you what to say?

MR. NICOLSON: Pardon? Who told me what to say? Well, you just have to open your ears and you'll hear. Believe me, this is a problem throughout the entire province.

I must say that the opening speaker over there did map out a marvelous blueprint for the nineteenth century as far as labour-management relations are concerned.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: Name dummy companies — I actually could name a few in our area. I won't go into it now. But I'll bring them up, and I'll name them in the future, perhaps in third reading.

So I think that this will go a long way — well, I shouldn't say it will go a long way; it won't really go nearly far enough to relieving this problem of dummy companies to the workers.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: You people just love paternalism. And since you bring it up — I heard a few complaints last Friday because a certain group of secretaries walked out of this House at Friday noon because it had been the practice of their benevolent — not employers, certainly not their employers — but one party has made a practice of letting them go. And they took off last week, not knowing that we were going to sit in the afternoon, and suddenly some people were very upset about it. Now that's what paternalism is. That's the kind of thing we want to avoid. We want to avoid this, as was spelled out very well in…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

[ Page 2412 ]

MR. NICOLSON: All right, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point, and I think it is being felt on the other side of the House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, once again just a brief comment about this bill, the Public Works Fair Employment Act, which is neither fair nor very democratic, I'm afraid.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we must maintain in our society the freedom to disagree. Regardless of what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) or the Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) think, there are people in this province who do not choose, Mr. Speaker, to belong to a labour organization — in fact about 60 per cent of them in the province at this point. Freedom of choice is all we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and that choice is being abrogated right now by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the unions have every right and every obligation to get out and organize as much as they possibly can. But, there is no necessity for the Minister of Labour to become the chief organizer for those unions. If you don't believe in unionism, Mr. Speaker, then you must have the right to equal opportunity — to compete on an equal footing with those people who do belong to unions, especially in the public sector where the tax dollar is involved.

Some of the other Members earlier, Mr. Speaker, were changing the name of this legislation, and if I had my choice, I would call it the "catch up on political debts Act" because that is what it is.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister, in introducing this bill, made a very poor case for its acceptance. And the speakers on the Government side, who spoke in favour of the bill, have been equally weak in their presentation. It makes it appear, Mr. Speaker, as though there really isn't a strong case, a necessity for this bill at all. I am much more impressed by the arguments of my friends on the right, the official Opposition, who seem to suggest that there's a great deal of influence being placed on the Minister of Labour by special interest groups in the big unions, and that this is the real purpose behind the bill.

Mr. Speaker, any number of Members have stood up in the House and given specific examples as to how the government's ability to negotiate to have work done is going to be very severely impaired.

The Government, if it wished to bring down some kind of an administrative directive — guidelines if you like in public works — could have cured most of the ills that have been raised by the Members opposite and still left ample room to accommodate those many situations where individuals or small groups are in a position to render an efficient service, and indeed have been doing so up until the introduction of this rather odious Act.

But quite apart, Mr. Speaker, from the inefficiency that this kind of a rigid law is going to impose on the government and all the civil servants who are trying to do an efficient job on behalf of the taxpayers — the Minister probably wouldn't find it necessary to bring a bill of this kind in if the civil service could see eye to eye with its provisions. It is brought in there specifically to tell the civil service, "Do what the union people tell you, not what is in the best interests of the taxpayer."

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is an obligation on the part of the government to be scrupulously fair to people. Not to favour those who belong to the big international unions, but to be fair to everyone. If a person is happy in the firm he's working for and part of that firm's business is with government, that man should not be forced to join one of these big international unions and pay his union dues to the United States in order to get work with the British Columbia government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, that's what's going to happen, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Let the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) deny that that will be the effect. The effect will be that individuals will be forced to join those international unions because you can't get on a heavy construction site in British Columbia today unless you belong to an international union.

All international unions require that union dues be paid to headquarters in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it go from there?

MR. McGEER: Well, a lot of it stays there, Mr. Speaker. And yes, I do object to that, make no bones about it. But, Mr. Speaker, nobody has denied that that will be the effect. I'll tell you why, because that will be the effect; it will be precisely the effect. Whether a man wants to be or not, in order to get that job, he is now going to have to pay union dues to the United States. This is the kind of thing that I regret being forced upon people in British Columbia. If they want to do it of their free well, fine.

If, in the discretion of the government, it is better for a particular subcontract to award it to a union firm rather than a non-union firm because that is an administrative policy of the government — fine — we can even go that far. But this is a rigid law. It is going to force things into a mould. It is going to make the

[ Page 2413 ]

government even less flexible than it is today. Because of the inflexibility and inefficiency, it will raise costs to the taxpayer. It will work a hardship on people who do not now belong to international unions because it discriminates against them.

Mr. Speaker, that's not a fair employment principle. I would hope that the Minister would see fit to withdraw this bill in favour of an administrative directive, something which indicates his preference and the preference of the Government; something which would not be compulsory, but would indicate a desire, and perhaps see how this would work. I submit that it would work very well, but that what we have here is discrimination in our laws, and I disapprove and will vote against the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I don't usually join in matters of this nature such as the Public Works Fair Employment Act. But I can see, even as one who is not completely conversant with all the ramifications of labour legislation, that there can be some areas of concern.

Maybe the bill is entitled wrongly, maybe it should have been known as the John Fryer bill, but I can certainly see where many, many people as a single unit do contract. I don't know how you would go about having them setting up a union of their own, as one individual, and getting certification. I don't know how they would function, but I know that this bill certainly is a method in which the membership of the government employees union can be expanded. And if it is going to take legislation to recruit members for that union, I would be very surprised. The Minister might shake his head and grin about this, but there is this distinct possibility, and I'm sure it has to be recognized.

I know many people are going to be upset over this. Many people have contacted me already, because they happen to be in a unique sort of undertaking in which probably there is no union presently which could take them in its membership. I question this very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must speak against this bill. I won't repeat everything that went before, but it is discriminatory. What I can't, for the life of me, understand is that when the Minister of Labour has apparently the whole matter of labour laws in the province under review he would bring in this legislation, because it is an imposition upon employers, as I read the legislation. Now, under the Labour Relations Act of this province the employer is supposed to have no control at all over what his employees do with regard to being unionized or not. I can foresee a situation where an employer having a group of workmen, either large or small, non-unionized — that's their choice. The employer is not supposed to go to them and say, "Join a particular union," or "Don't join a particular union." Anyway that's the existence.

Then an employer decides that he wants to bid on a contract with the Crown or a Crown agency. Suddenly with this legislation before him he says, "My goodness, my shop has to be unionized." So he goes to his employees — I don't know how he makes this approach without running the risk of his infringing against the Labour Relations Act — and says to them, "Boys, you've got to get busy and join a union, or else I can't get this job. Now if I can't get this job, then maybe I'll have to shut down, and you'll lose your jobs." So somehow or other he impresses them with the seriousness of this problem, and if the employees are of a mind to go along with the suggestion, they go out and say, "O.K. We had better join a particular union, and get certified."

But then we have had recent instances — and I won't bring up the international versus the Canadian union conflict that we have had in the last few days. But maybe they join a Canadian union, and they're told, "Well, you can't join them, because you won't be able to get certified if you join them. There might be something wrong with how your officers of that union are elected." I'm only giving you an example, Mr. Minister.

So then the employer is put in the position of saying to his men, "You can't join that union, you've got to join some other union." He is directly flying in the face of the Labour Relations Act, because he is taking steps to induce them or to compel them not to continue to belong to a particular union organization — all because the Minister has seen fit to interfere with labour laws in this province, and the right of employers to seek work, and the right of employees to become members of unions or not at their choice.

To compound discrimination with what may easily become enforced breaches of the laws of this province is something that I can't support.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Maybe I should sit back down, Mr. Speaker. I saw the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) try and get up before me. Under the circumstances maybe I should sit down, because I know she'll need two or three hours and I'll only need two minutes.

I'd like to refer back to the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), who said that he was no expert on labour legislation and labour law. I don't

[ Page 2414 ]

think you have to be an expert to recognize some of the inequities within our society. I'm no expert either. At the same time, a long time ago I heard someone tell me about my rights — you know, the right to work, and the right to do this, and the right to do that, which are some of the myths of our society. We talk about rights, but when it comes down to it, these are pie in the sky. What we are talking about is realities. We have to talk about protecting people, not about these ambiguous kinds of rights. It is fine to tell a group of people that they have a right to stand alone as individuals, when they have to go and make a deal with somebody who's got all the money. That's fine. Keep them divided by telling them about their rights.

If you want to find something out about this society, the first thing you are going to learn the hard way, if you don't know it already, is that unless you realize the power of your two feet when you are walking down the street with other people who are in the same boat you are in, you don't have any power, when you go to talk with somebody who's got all the money. It doesn't matter whether it is the Crown or Crown Zellerbach. (Laughter).

Sure we are not going to resolve the problems of labour and management by this piece of legislation, but we are going to put some reality into the situation. There are a lot of people out there who are not getting a fair deal because they don't understand anything about collective bargaining. There are too many people walking the streets today who misunderstand this business about their rights. Far too many as far as I am concerned.

I know some people who came in the other day with a presentation to caucus and they talked about the misuse that they were receiving from management in forcing upon them all of the trinkets in selling gas, and they had to subscribe to all these things. Yet those same people are going around saying they have a right not to be organized, they have a right to stand alone. They are just like a bunch of chickens, being plucked off one at a time. That is what I think about standing alone.

It is fine to stand alone so long as everybody is standing alone, but don't think that management is not together, especially when it comes to exploiting people, because the way you will make your money in this society is by finding weaknesses. Until we get organized in this way, until we tell the people on the street, "Fine. You want to be individuals, you want your rights — understand first of all the name of the game in this competitive society in which we live," I think the government has to come out front, the same as it has to do on other things.

We have to lay down the law. We are living in a society of dog eat dog. We are living in a society of regulations, and unless we understand this, I think that we are playing games. We are misleading the people. We have to have regulations, and they have to be in line with reality. Maybe it will be different in another decade from now or so, but we are not going to help people on the streets who are on the short end of the stick by telling them, "You get out there and try real hard."

In any sector of our society I could give you an analogy. It doesn't matter whether it is the guy who is trying to get somewhere in this society without a proper education, or without the means, or resources — which are under the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement who is trying to raise their level up, say with a minimum income or something like that — or a person who is trying to get through university. But finally after getting it you still can't compete.

All these people need to understand the problems of our society. I think it's good business for the government to protect the people who are working for it. If you go and make a deal with a contractor, and don't ensure that the people who work under that corporation or that agent…This is companion legislation to our previous bill — Bill No. 152, I believe — which talked about the protection of wages. This group of people voted in favour of that bill incidentally, just a few minutes ago — the previous bill. And now you are saying don't vote for this. I think if we are concerned about people we can't be concerned about them half the time and not be concerned about them the rest of the time.

It is a great big joke, when we talk about individuals' rights. I get pretty shaken, Mr. Speaker, when I think about the human rights situation in this province. It is the same thing. We say, "No we do not want legislation which will protect people to the extent that we are going to prosecute." We should get out front, and cut out the games that we are playing with people, and all these myths. We had better have some teeth in the things that we are doing, at least for today. This is a contemporary thing we are talking about. This has nothing to do with 100 years ago, or the next 100 years. We are concerned right now, and there are people out there on the streets who need to be protected. This Government has the responsibility to do it, and it has to do it with authority.

The Opposition, by telling people about their rights, is just dragging them behind. Because you are not going to convince a guy who has the opportunity to take them for all they are worth that he is concerned about their rights. They have to protect themselves or they are going to go down the drain, and there are many examples of that.

You take a look at the retail operators of gasoline in this province. Ask them what they think of selling all those little tigers in the tank, and glasses and all these other — ask them what they think. And also ask them whether they are prepared to form a union and organize themselves to tell those… (Laughter)

[ Page 2415 ]

…those fellows who are pushing the petroleum where they should go. Ask them. They'll say, "Oh, no, we don't want to do that because we are individuals, we are free enterprisers, we are entrepreneurs. We are the kind of people who are semi-middle class. We're not quite up and we're not quite down." (Laughter).

These are the kind of people, Mr. Speaker, who will be the first ones to talk about rights but they don't understand anything about the jungle we're in out there and the war we're in out there.

I think it is an insult that I must have a glass or a coupon whenever I make a purchase of gas.

I feel this legislation, for all the criticism is vital to the workers of this province. O.K. we're going to get it. The Loyal Opposition is doing its job. That's all they're doing — a job, and they're trying to do a job on the public right now. The realities are that after we are finished talking, there are thousands of people out there who need to be protected and it's a two-way street. I support this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself for a little while on this bill, particularly in relation to the Act it is replacing. However, we have some business coming up shortly, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would advise us or perhaps declare a five minute recess without the Members leaving the chamber so we can be ready for the Lieutenant-Governor when he comes in two or three minutes time.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members accept a short recess?

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 5:40 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the House and took his place in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance Bill No. 172 intituled An Act For Granting Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service of the Province of British Columbia.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to this bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the Chamber.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would ask leave of the House to withdraw Bill No. 23 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.