[ Page 2753 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill No. 43).

Committee, report and third reading — 2753

Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 45).

Committee, report and third reading — 2753

Ambulance Service Act (Bill No. 106). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2753

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2753

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2754

Mr. Gardom — 2754

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2754

Mr. Wallace — 2754

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2754

Mrs. Jordan — 2755

Mr. McClelland — 27552769

Report and third reading — 2755

An Act to Amend the Medical Act (Bill No. 110).

Committee, report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill No. 118).

Committee, report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122).

Committee and report — 2756

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill No. 134). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2756

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2756

Report and third reading — 2756

An Act to Amend the Hearing-Aid Regulation Act (Bill No. 137). Committee stage.

Mr. McClelland — 2757

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2757

Report and third reading — 2757

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act (Bill No. 168).

Committee, report and third reading — 2757

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33). Committee stage.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2757

Mr. Chabot — 2757

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2758

Mr. Wallace — 2759

Mrs. Jordan — 2759

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2760

Report stage — 2760

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2760

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill No. 111). Committee stage.

Mrs. Jordan — 2761

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2762

Mrs. Jordan — 2762

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2763

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Report and third reading — 2763

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Committee stage.

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2763

Mrs. Jordan — 2764

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2764

Mr. McClelland — 2764

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2764

Mrs. Jordan — 2764

Mr. McClelland — 2764

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2765

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2765

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2766

Mrs. Jordan — 2766

Mr. Chabot — 2767

Mr. Gardom — 2767

Mrs. Jordan — 2768

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2768

Mr. Chabot — 2768

Mrs. Jordan — 2768

Mr. Chabot — 2769

Report stage — 2769

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 102). Committee stage.

Mrs. Jordan — 2769

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2770

Mrs. Jordan — 2770

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2771

Division on amendment — 2771

Mrs. Jordan — 2772

Mr. Chabot — 2772

Mr. Schroeder — 2772

Mr. Cummings — 2773

Mrs. Jordan — 2773

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2774

Mr. Cummings — 2774

Mr. Phillips — 2774

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2776

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2776

Mr. Chabot — 2777

Mr. McClelland — 2777

Division on amendment — 2777

Mr. Chabot — 2778

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2778

Mr. Cummings — 2778

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2778

Mrs. Jordan — 2779

Mr. Phillips — 2779

Mr. Wallace — 2780

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2780

Mr. Wallace — 2780

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2780

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2781

Mr. Gardom — 2782

Division on amendment — 2782

Mr. Chabot — 2782

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2782

Mr. Chabot — 2783

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2783

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2783

Mr. Chabot — 2783

Mr. Schroeder — 2784

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2784

Mrs. Jordan — 2784

Mr. Phillips — 2785

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2786

Mr. Phillips — 2786

Mr. Rolston — 2787

Mr. Gardom — 2787

Mr. Phillips — 2788

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2788

Mr. Phillips — 2788

Mr. Cummings — 2788

Mr. Chabot — 2788

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2788

Mr. Smith — 2789

Mr. Wallace — 2789

Mr. Chabot — 2789

Division on amendment — 2789

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2790
Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2791
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2791

Mr. Chabot — 2792

Division on motion that the committee rise — 2792

Mr. Chabot — 2792

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2792
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2792
Mrs. Jordan — 2792

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2794

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2794

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2795

Report stage — 2795

Division on adjournment to Saturday morning — 2796

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

The House met at 7:15 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we start I want to apologize for being delayed a few minutes while the Queen's Printer got the proceedings in the book. He must be congratulated for the speed with which he did it.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to committee stage on bills.

Motion approved.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Before we do, could I perhaps assist the House for one second? I would ask the leave of the House, in the spirit of moving along with this session, to withdraw under item 3, introduction of bills, the notice of bill standing in my name.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CHANGE OF NAME ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 43; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 43, An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

SEXUAL STERILIZATION ACT
REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 45; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 45, Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: It's all right, Hon. Member. They are not repealing any sterilizations. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 106, Mr. Speaker.

AMBULANCE SERVICE ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 106; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister if I could under this section, because this is a brand new Act and because many of the people who are now operating ambulances probably won't fit into the necessary qualifications at the moment, will there be a period of grace allowed for these kinds of regulations?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, the reason that this is a permissive piece of legislation is for that very purpose the Member suggested, and that is that we realize there is going to be a phasing-in process and it's going to take some time for some areas, particularly without some help, to get up to a standard. Therefore, we felt that this was the way to go.

[ Page 2754 ]

Some areas are way ahead right now and other areas are somewhat behind. I have had a lot of correspondence with areas in Peace River and in the Fraser Valley, for example, indicating that they just couldn't go for the level that is being produced elsewhere. We certainly recognize that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will there be a requirement for a register of the people who are approved? It appears that this is not clear in the Act.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. That definitely will be required, that all ambulance services must be registered.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to ask the Minister one question on this point. Has he any information as to the success or otherwise of having some of the ambulance Personnel being interns or fledgling nurses? I understand this has been tried in other areas and I just wondered if he had received any information as to whether it's been a useful or successful project.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, many methods have been tried and many methods have been quite successful. A very successful method, for example, is to give rather intensive training to those people that are motivated in that direction in fire departments, to train them in defibrillation and all sorts of techniques that they must know in order to be good ambulance attendants.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about an intern.

HON. MR. COCKE: As far as interns and nurses are concerned, certainly there is a place in this kind of, system for them. What we want to do is create a system where people …

MR. GARDOM: Have you got any information in other areas that they have interns?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, there are some areas where they use interns — for example in Europe and in Great Britain. As far as we're concerned what we want to do is produce the kind of service that will give a person medical care right from the time the ambulance gets there. Up to now in many areas the real intensive care starts at the time it gets to the hospital and then it's sometimes too late. So what we're trying to do is upgrade.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't filibuster.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister, in light of the remarks he has just made, whether it would be reasonable to say that the ultimate goal is to copy the American Medic One idea, because they have shown that people — not necessarily interns with all the full medical training they have had — can function very well in this capacity.

I realize you can't bring this in overnight or over a short period of time. As I said earlier in second reading on this bill what we are really trying to do is make the ambulance an extension of the hospital. As the Minister pointed out, it is vital care where literally minutes can make the difference between life and death. If the ambulance attendant gets to the person with a cardiac arrest and can resuscitate them until they get them to the hospital, then all the more complicated supervision and treatment can begin. But, of course, if the patient is dead by the time you get to the hospital, obviously the battle's lost.

Someone asked a question about experience elsewhere. It does seem as though the kind of very intensive training in a relatively limited scope with relation to the type of emergency is quite feasible. Now there have been many municipalities, I gather, where the fire department is responsible also for the ambulance service. I would like the Minister, if he wouldn't mind, to express some view as to whether this is the kind of policy he encourages.

Thirdly, the Victoria area has decided to base its ambulance service on one of the hospitals in the city and to have round-the-clock coverage by ambulance personnel. I wonder if the Minister could give us just a brief comment on how he thinks the service should be based and the kind of ultimate goal that we have in this whole question of ambulance service.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, on the ultimate goal let me say that naturally we have to be guided by the area itself. Our ultimate goal is to save lives with ambulance service.

Now as far as encouraging the fire departments, we'll encourage any group of people. One of the reasons that the fire departments have been so successful is the fact that there are a group of people within the fire departments who are career people and their whole life is aimed at saving lives.

Just to talk for one second about Medic One. In Seattle, for example, after cardiac arrest, I believe they have within the last couple of years resuscitated 220 people. Now that's a pretty good record. So we have to aim at that kind of programme.

I might say I was very pleased with the Saanich programme. They are moving in that direction and I

[ Page 2755 ]

would like to see this whole province move in that direction, Ms. Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Madam Chairman, I don't have any wish to detract from the seriousness of the debate; I'm not being facetious; and I am not quite up to date in my information. But, when I was a student nurse, which was more than a day or two ago, we used to have the opportunity of taking courses and working on the ambulances — it was the only real way that student nurses could earn a little pocket money.

When the Minister is overviewing this whole situation, I would ask that he would look into the feasibility for the opportunity for the training of a student nurse for this type of companion position in the ambulance with a view to their receiving some remuneration for it.

They are still not overpaid by any means, and as long as they are in the hospitals in their training programme where they are regulated to unusual hours — shift systems and really no opportunity to supplement their income, it is an avenue that is in keeping with their training. If they had special training in the beginning, as I say, as an assistant, certainly not as a major attendant, it keeps an avenue open for them that is compatible with their training and also helps them financially.

I hope the Minister will keep this in mind when he is doing this in Kamloops, and in the major areas.

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you very much. It's a good idea.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, just a couple of questions, if I may. I would ask the Minister another question that relates to another section because we may be able to get through quicker that way.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Which section?

MR. McCLELLAND: Section 3 to begin with, and I would like to ask the Minister if there is any criticism of this Act, it might be that it is a sort of a cart before the horse Act in that the on-going programme is coming after the Act is already passed. I would like the Minister, if he will, to explain what the training programme will be for these people; how quickly that will be implemented and whether the training will take place before this period of grace expires, for instance.

The second thing has to do with section 3 and with section 6, probably. What kind of financial aid are the small municipalities and the small unorganized areas going to have to allow them to be able to provide the kind of service that is going to be demanded, and rightly so, by the regulations and the Act itself?

HON. MR. COCKE: First let's talk about the training. What we've done here, is we've given ourselves an opportunity. This is the first time that we have ever had an ambulance Act in the province or in a number of provinces, and therefore you first have to set the standards. As far as we are concerned, we feel that we have to build those standards, and we have to watch that we don't opt some areas out completely. So the training programme will be based on the needs of the different areas, and building on that to an optimum. So far as financial help is concerned, Mr. Member, through you Madam Chairman, I would say that that will be part of the negotiation that will go on between the regional hospital districts and the government at that time. Agreed, they are going to need some help.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's going to be much more expensive, and some of them cannot afford it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 106, Ambulance Service Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 110, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MEDICAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 110; Ms. Young in the chair.

[ Page 2756 ]

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 110, An Act to Amend the Medical Act reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 118, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MEDICAL GRANT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 118; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 118, An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 122, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HEALTH ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 122; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 122, An Act to Amend the Health Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 134, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HOSPITAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 134; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: No opposition to this bill, but I just asked the Minister if he received the submission from the Canadian Bar Association in which they submit that perhaps this section 2(5) is too broad. They have submitted a suggested amendment. I would just ask the Minister if he has considered that submission.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Madam Chairman, I have. I received a copy of it, and I am advised by our legal counsel that the Bar Association were a little bit uptight, and that this section will be quite adequate. Now if it proves not to be, that's a harmless state, but I would suggest that it's right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'll consider it though?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. Oh, of course. We have it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2757 ]

Bill No. 134, An Act to Amend the Hospital Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 137, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HEARING-AID REGULATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 137; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just briefly again, and pretty well on the same question. There was a submission from the Bar Association which seems to me to have a great deal of merit to it, In section 2(1)(a) and (b), there are quite wide powers given to the matter of entering the business premises of any hearing-aid dealer for the purposes of investigation and access to and examination of the books and things. Perhaps it would be a good idea if there were some guarantee that all of that information would be kept strictly confidential, because under the terms of the Act at the moment that guarantee isn't given.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. I recognize it's an informal investigation. It's really to strengthen the board's power, I certainly can give you that kind of guarantee. We have no intention of hassling people but we do have to provide the assurance…. Certainly anything that's learned will not be made public knowledge.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 137, An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No 168, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES
LICENSING ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 168; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment, Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 168, An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 33; Ms. Young in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Ms. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Bill 33, section 1 is a piece of legislation that makes provisions to take into consideration the public interest in labour disputes. It'll bring harmony, I'm sure, between labour and management.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the wrong one.

[ Page 2758 ]

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm on the wrong bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I think you're out about four years.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I thought Bill 33…(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on, Jim. Don't ruin a good speech. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a good speech, Jim. Carry on. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Really it's a bill that gives blanket authority to the Minister. We vote a lump sum into the Legislature and then the Minister has the authority to adjust and readjust through the regulations as to how that money is going to be dispensed.

I'm not so particularly concerned as to whom it's going to be dispensed to, because I think that's clearly spelled out in Section 1 of the amended section which we're discussing at this particular time. But it's that awesome power that is being put in the hands of the Minister to adjust the rates and the means by which money shall be dispensed by regulation without authority of the power of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. We're all sent here to pass laws for which the Legislature must answer and for which we must vote money — but not blanket, blank cheque laws, which is what you're asking us to endorse here.

So we give you a bundle of money so that you can go out and adjust it through order-in-council by regulation. Today you think it meets the needs; tomorrow you might have to bring in another order-in-council to adjust the regulations, I think that's bad legislation, because you can constantly change the goal posts. I don't think that that's in the best interests of the objectives of having this assembly here, of voting money for specific proposals without its being voted in a lump sum to be dispensed at the whim and at the wish of the Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I think that the previous speaker had some interesting remarks probably a few years out of date, in that I think they were addressed to the original provision in the bill.

The fact of the matter is that he is not that far off after all. Had he said the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who of course is advised by the Minister, he would have been right on. There really isn't a great deal of change in this legislation.

In my mind, one of the problems of welfare is that it's a paternalistic system whereby the social worker becomes, if you like, the father, or the godfather…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …and the recipient really has no rights. This was the big problem with the previous legislation — the recipient had no rights at all. The former Minister (Mr. Gaglardi) — thank goodness now changed — was in the position of handing out the money as he saw fit. It was far too discretionary.

Now there's been a very minor change in that the Minister has to go through the cabinet and there is this right to appeal which, I believe, was forced upon the government by the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. The Minister nods his head in agreement. Well thank goodness the federal Act did at least give this minor right to recipients of welfare.

We think this is really a step forward, but a step about two inches long. It really does very little for the welfare recipient. I am distressed about that although, as I said, as it is a step forward we will be supporting it.

Perhaps the Minister might comment on this, because in my mind I really wonder why he brought in the legislation. It really does very, very little. The recipient is left in the same state as he's always been in, namely accepting largesse without any legal rights to it, without any real framework; and the Minister working through the cabinet retains virtually full powers. Now surely some of his cabinet colleagues — and there are other social workers in the cabinet who are obviously interested — may add to his decision, or subtract from it.

Regardless of that, it's exactly the same system as before with a few more people involved than originally. I just wonder at this stage whether we have moved very far forward. The rights that I think exist are not there. It's still paternalistic. It's still discretionary. It's still entirely by way of regulation. And bearing in mind the difficulty of handling the whole problem of granting welfare, I still think that if it's a step in the right direction it's so small as to be insignificant.

Many of the comments that the present government made when the other Minister was in that portfolio are still valid. You haven't got around the problem. You haven't dealt with the points that you raised so eloquently when the Hon. P.A. Gaglardi held this portfolio.

I find it awfully curious that you've got such a minuscule Act, which may repeal the Gaglardi provisions, but nevertheless does not much more than that and doesn't change the basically unsatisfactory nature of the whole question of granting welfare.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

[ Page 2759 ]

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would agree that we would like a little more detail in the bill as to the specific authority of the Minister. It's rather a short bill giving him a great deal of power.

Really, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) must be speaking with tongue in cheek or with forked tongue or some kind of odd tongue. I well remember the fierce debate which raged in this House over two words in a certain bill when the Socreds were the government. That gave total discretion to the Minister of Rehabilitation. There was a very fierce debate on this very principle.

Today must be Gaglardi day in the Legislature, I think. The same names come up on several references. I agree with the Liberal leader that there isn't …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, no, I'm not going to knife anybody. I'm just….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, I agree with the Liberal leader's comment that there hasn't been much improvement. With respect, I think we should be fair and judge this Minister on his merits, as we obviously have been doing all day judging the former Minister on his lack of merits. I think that the Minister, by his action in raising welfare payments and trying to give better justice to the recipients of welfare, his whole philosophy and his attitude to the drug problem and the fact that we obviously have a Minister who has acted with great discretion…we should judge people by their example. We certainly criticize them on the basis of their example.

Although I agree with the Liberal leader that we would like to see a little more detail in the authority and the manner in which that authority and discretion should be exercised — I would like to see that — I rather feel that with this particular Minister we will gain that kind of improvement. It isn't in the legislation. On this side of the House we're always harping about the amount of power given by regulation which is spelled out after we all go home. I agree with that.

But in this particular instance I think, as I say, that we should be fair and respect the present Minister for the actions he has already taken and the philosophy he has spelled out.

In being fair to him — and we'll talk about this a little later — the appeal mechanism has been put in the bill. This is something which I recall was bitterly debated in the former government when we debated Bill 68 or whatever number it was. There was absolutely no appeal by the individual concerned. So I think that it's so easy always to grumble that we're not going far enough fast enough. I think we could do better than the bill we have here tonight. But in the context of the statements I've made, I'm certainly supporting this bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I was just going to answer a couple of questions the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked — why did the Minister bring in such a bill on a piece of paper? I was going to say that we all know why — he's the Minister of Rehabilitation and he's got a welfare paper company on his hands. He's a good British Columbian and he just wants to promote the paper.

Mr. Minister, I think that in all due kindness, one could really only call this a flip-flop piece of legislation. The amendment as it stands really doesn't carry any weight at all. It's a bit of a phony. I believe it was introduced and intended to leave the impression that the former Minister did have absolute, dictatorial powers and that he could control and had control over the people who would receive social assistance and the rates that would apply at that time.

Mr. Minister, in examining this bill, the key word is still "regulation" and the rates must be set by regulation in the bill. Who really sets the regulations but the Minister? So we're going all the way around the mulberry bush. We're flipping and flopping and we're right back to the fact that the Minister does have strong powers and that it's the regulations that will set the rates and that it's the Minister who will set those regulations.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. You're not talking on the amendment, as I read it.

MRS. JORDAN: The Act is An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. I'm speaking to section 1. I'm not speaking to the amendment that the Minister brought in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what we're dealing with.

MRS. JORDAN: No, the amendment he brought in was appeal, if I'm correct, I'm not talking about an appeal to the Minister's decision.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Section 1 is amended on the order paper and we're speaking to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: No, we passed the amendment. We're speaking to the bill. It's called An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. It still leaves the same powers. Anyway, it's all right, Madam Chairman I'll try not to cause you any concern.

Quite honestly, Mr. Minister, I really don't contest

[ Page 2760 ]

I have the feeling that you as Minister are responsible. We feel that you're responsible and that you should answer to this House in that capacity. Everybody wants to do the very best they can for those in need; but it is public funds and there are abuses that take place. There are reasons why the rates can't be as high as everybody would like them to be.

Notwithstanding the fact that the bill itself is window dressing, we feel that the Minister should have a strong degree of responsibility in this matter, and should be answerable to the public and to the people. He has brought in an amendment to make an appeal and be answerable to us in this Legislature. As I say, notwithstanding the fact that you could have done all this without promoting the paper industry in British Columbia — and I wouldn't want…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MRS. JORDAN …you to use the Act to try and discredit the former Minister. We're here to judge you and what you do for the people of British Columbia.

As I say, we feel that it's a lot of power. It must be used judiciously. It's quite obvious that it's the policy of your government to centralize power. We've been through a whole afternoon of debate where massive sums of money have been centralized in the hands of one Minister and where there's the opportunity for government to enter into premises under a very, very unacceptable way democratically. So I think that the Minister's position in this is not out of keeping with the policy of his government. In this particular instance, we accept it on the basis of the job the Minister has to do and his sense of responsibility, not only to those in need but those who are providing the funds.

We will support the bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, we don't consider this window dressing. This side took a very strong position in respect to the previous Act and we've moved on that. But we also have to move on the fact that we don't have an appeal system, as a result of a recent case in the appeal court.

I also said on February 16 that it was our intention to attempt to rewrite the whole of the Social Assistance Act so that we can build into it a little bit of philosophy about what we feel about social security and social assistance; and that we intend to do. As soon as the session is over, we'll put together a committee and we will attempt to rewrite this Act. That's the way we have to do it.

But I don't accept the argument that it's window dressing. We fought an election on this small issue of the power of a Minister. I don't have absolute jurisdiction. We've introduced in here an appeal system which did not exist before like that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I have power and responsibility. I'm the Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 as amended pass?

Sections 1 and 2 approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 33, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ADOPTION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 40; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2761 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 111, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 111; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've made it known in previous debates that while we acknowledge the Minister's right as a new Minister and a new government to change policies and to bring in new ideas, we've made it very clear also that we feel he has to, when he cancels programmes, offer an alternative. This has not been done in the past. The Minister has made it very clear on occasions both at public meetings and through the media that he's going to axe the societies. Whether or not this is the impression he intended to create, it's the impression that has been created by his statements and by the media.

We feel, Mr. Minister, while there very well may need to be a shake-up in some social services and some volunteer organizations, that setting out to axe them with a club is hardly the way to go about it. This involves the Children's Aid Society in Vancouver and the Catholic Children's Aid Society.

I would hope that the Minister would state, when he's summing up the bill or when I sit down, whether or not he has been in touch with all three of the major societies that would be affected by this bill. Would he advise as to whether he discussed the matter with them — not with a club, but with a view to exchanging ideas; and that he's not going to axe them, if he feels this is necessary, without having sound and well planned alternatives for the children who do fall in the care of these various groups now.

I would ask the Minister, because this is a bone of contention on the floor of the House at this time, that when he axes these people and if it's in his wisdom to axe the Catholic Children's Aid Society, that he do take into consideration the religious views of young children or older children who will fall within the purview of new community organizations or whatever alternate he has.

I think this is an extremely important thing that we preserve the right of a child who is, for one reason or another, out of its home; that at least until it's of an age of decision and can think for himself, that the family religious views be honoured. I don't suggest they be rammed down the child's throat, but there should be this foundation kept up in the placing of these children until such time as they can make their own decisions. This may not necessarily be the age of majority.

Frankly, Mr. Minister, our view is that instead of axing all these people, it might well be better, if you're not happy with the way they're carrying on, that you sit down and discuss with them many of the changes that you would like to see made. And rather than completely disbanding them, you give them an annual budget and a commitment from the province on the basis of what they do, and let them continue to function. In giving them a budget, you then have the right to make certain requests of them so that they can qualify.

There are, particularly with the Catholic Aid Society, hundreds of volunteer people who put a tremendous input into this group.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh why don't you pipe down? I'm talking to the Minister. If you want to be the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, take the portfolio. Well, get up on your feet and ask me the question. I'm talking to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking him questions and if I don't know what I'm talking about, it's because this hasn't been explained on the floor of this House, Mr. Premier. If you want to bludgeon legislation through this House, then you've got to be prepared to answer some of the questions on the floor of this House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You sit over there quacking away like a little duck. You don't want the public to know what's going on. You're ramming legislation through here so fast you can't even find the amendments on the order paper. You're even going so far as attempting to influence the Chair, Mr. Premier, through you Madam Chairman, by saying, "let's get on, let's get on, let's get on."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Minister, Mr. Premier, through you Madam Chairman, we are here to be concerned about the business of the people of this province. You insist on keeping everyone in this House from nine in the morning until midnight. You insist on having committee meetings at the same time.

[ Page 2762 ]

Now just sit down and let us get the information that we would otherwise get….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly confine your remarks to the section under debate?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would ask the Minister, are these Press reports true? Are you really setting gut to axe all these people? What have you done in the way of dialogue with them? What are your future plans? What type of financing programme are you going to bring in? If you're going to let them carry on, what demands will you be making on them in return for government consideration?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: You know, I'm really amazed. The Member is really not so well informed about this thing. February 16, I made a very lengthy statement in this House on the reasons why we were doing this kind of thing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, February 16 — you know, you go to the clippings or you go to Hansard, but it's all in there in detail. On that day, I introduced to the House the three presidents of the Children's Aid Society and the three executive directors. I invited them over, they were sitting up in the gallery.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I'm very sorry. I had lunch with them. We had a long….

MRS. JORDAN: Yeah, but I didn't have lunch with them.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! You have asked the question, now allow the Minister to answer.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want any lunch, I want some information on what this Minister's going to do.

MS. CHAIRMAN: That is no point of order. You have asked questions of the Minister. The Minister is responding to your questions. Kindly keep quiet.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: It was addressed to every Member of this assembly who was abusing the privileges of this House.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me just finish, Madam Chairman, We have consulted at great length with the people. We're not axing anybody. What we're attempting to do is to integrate and rationalize this system. They are financed by the government 100 cents on the dollar. And the important thing for us is that we want to be able, in the greater Victoria area, to spread that kind of good system that is available throughout the whole capital regional district. Nothing wrong with that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: You want to know? The point is that I've discussed this in the House before, all of the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, if you're going to be the welfare critic, you're just going to have to be around. We've had a great deal of consultation….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, you know, I don't have to stand here and give you the information that you're supposed to elicit as the opposition critic. You know I'm pretty busy, I have to keep going out to my office. The point is this, that there's been a great deal of discussion. Certainly, there's not all sweetness and light out there because we're attempting to do something that the profession has talked about for years, and nobody's moved on, As a government, we feel that we have an obligation to the taxpayer to deliver the best possible service to the children and families of this province, and that's the way we're going to go.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Going to do? I've already stated what we are going to do.

MRS. JORDAN: Well what is your view on the religious aspects of children who may not be with a society of their own religion? Will you honour this, as I asked you when we were discussing it?

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Member, there's no question that the religion of a child is always respected regardless of which agency they're under or if they're under the government. We don't make any bones about that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

[ Page 2763 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I'm a little confused on what happens to the assets — the physical assets — of, say, the Catholic Children's Aid Society. Does this go to the Crown, or does it go back to the church, or whatever group happens to be sponsoring the Children's Aid Society?

I quite appreciate that the operating budget is from the Crown, but I am not sure of what happens in cases where you have land or housing or other things which may or may not in the past have been the gift to the Crown. It may have been purchased by a local church or religious group.

As I read section 9 24A(l) and 24A(6)(b), I get the impression that the Public Trustee and the Crown will be picking up all the value of the fixed assets. I just wonder if he could give us some information on his discussions at the famous lunch that he had on this particular of the problem. I wasn't at the lunch either and I would have been delighted to have come.

HON. MR. LEVI: We did discuss this question and I we agreed that there is nothing hard and fast about what we say here. This thing is open for discussion.

I have indicated to them that where there are appropriate agencies or bodies that should receive some of the money from the agency, we will certainly see that is done. At the moment we are only considering one agency, we're not considering three. We're dealing primarily with one agency over here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 9 pass?

Section 9 approved.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief, Madam Chairman. It's just that in previous. debates in this House when the government was in opposition the question was often raised of a child beyond the control of the parent or guardian being placed in very unsuitable surroundings, exposed to the criminal element.

I think it shouldn't go unnoticed that one of the first things this government has done is to correct what was pointed out for many years to be a very undesirable practice in our society.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 111, An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 173, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 173; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Could I point out that we have the same problem as we had with Bill No. 42 which the government has amended. Section 2(3) states: "A majority of the Members present at any meeting of the commission constitutes a quorum." If read in its literal context it means that if there were two people that would constitute a quorum — even if one left. It's just that the word "present" is unnecessary. I think it would tidy up the legislation to make it precise. It leaves it open to the interpretation that a very small number of the commission, if present at a meeting, would constitute a quorum.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I did discuss this with the Attorney General's department. The amendment in respect to the other bills is because they were near judicial functions. It is not the case here. We discussed it and decided to have it stay judicial functions. It is not the case here. We discussed it and decided to have it stay as it is.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask the Minister a question? In other words, no matter how few members of the commission might be at a meeting, it could constitute a quorum. Do you feel this is reasonable?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I would certainly think there would be at least two people there anyway, We're talking about the practice of the commission. There would be a full-time commissioner and a deputy.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, with respect, I don't feel that that is a satisfactory answer. I think it

[ Page 2764 ]

With respect, I would hope that the Minister would reconsider and amend it,

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan,

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you Madam Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister, in light of what the Member for Oak Bay said regarding the specialization of power within the commission, if this would have any effect on why he has section 4 in here, which would allow the commission to hold and acquire properties. Is he thinking in terms of buildings and having the commission establish offices all around the province, or even acquire land in its own name with a view to providing or leasing out its own office space? Or is this just in relation to films and office equipment?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's basically the wherewithal you need to operate whatever service you're going to give. We're not going into the land business. It's the normal procedure when you set up an operation and have to have office space and machinery very much as the Member said. But it has got nothing to do with Bill 42.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley

MR. McCLELLAND: In light of the comments I made earlier in the debate, I would like to ask the Minister to assure us that this section will be used to its greatest degree. As I said before, you can't isolate this problem in British Columbia. We must have this committee relating all of the time to the Government of Canada. I'd just like assurance from the Minister on that point.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, certainly. During the second reading I made a statement on that and gave that assurance that we would certainly have to cooperate not only with the Government of Canada but with all the other provinces. And you have that assurance.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to ask the Minister if I am correct in assuming that the only report that this commission has to give is to the Minister himself and there is no provision in this section of the bill — unless I've missed it — for a report to this Legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No. "All moneys required to be expended…" et cetera, "shall be paid out of the…" Legislature, but it doesn't call for an accounting by the commission to the Legislature, does it?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Member has my assurance, the House has my assurance, the report will be tabled in this House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I hope that the Minister isn't anticipating the business of the House, but I notice that in this section it refers to the report being to the Minister of Human Resources. We don't have such a thing at this time, I don't think.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, you had to look for that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps he's jumping the gun a bit there.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On section 12, Madam….

MS. CHAIRMAN: We haven't done that one yet. Shall section 11 pass?

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

[ Page 2765 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's the famous Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco Fund which I spent much of the last three months trying to track down. Is that going to wind up in the hands of the commission or is it not? Is it going to remain in the hands of the Minister of Education, in your own hands, that of the Minister of Health's? You've all shown interest in this area and we have $25 million in limbo. I just think for tidiness' sake we should nail it down and perhaps put it in this commission.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the fund will continue and we will have access to it. As we see it, it will have the special function of prevention and education.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question is: which Minister will administer it? Will you continue to administer it?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, no. The Minister of Finance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's under his….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In terms of handing out money of the $2 million-odd in interest, I trust it is not the Minister of Finance because many others of you over there are more directly concerned with this particular problem.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's a perpetual fund; it's under the Minister of Finance.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I get an indication from the government as to whether this special fund now under the Minister of Finance will go elsewhere, at least in terms of handing out money?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: In listening to your debate I must concur with the Hon. Second Member for Victoria that we have not in any way really been able to debate these funds during this sitting of the Legislature. We really have had no accounting for these funds.

Now, under the section I asked you about — section 12 — you gave us your word that you would put the report in the House. I wouldn't want to doubt the Minister's word for a moment, but would you not hold the bill over until Monday, and bring in an amendment that would specifically outline the intention that a report should be tabled with the House. It is just a little bit nebulous to know that there are a few million dollars floating around in a special fund, and then we have a commission which has the right to draw funds.

The Minister himself is of course above reproach, but there might be another Minister in that portfolio one day. I wonder, in all seriousness, if the Minister would consider amending the bill himself in order that this would be made perfectly clear to the House. We would give him our assurance that if he could do this it would be very acceptable, and there would be no delay in the bill.

But I think we would be remiss in allowing this to pass without something more than the Minister's word that a report would be tabled in the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take the word of the Minister and assurances from him. Because on February 16, when the Member said she wasn't in the House, Hansard shows she was indeed in the House and heard the whole speech given by the Minister. Her name is on record in Hansard asking a question. So if you are asking the Member to give assurances to you, in response to you, Madam Chairman, I'll take his assurance any time.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I think that is just a classic example of what a petty puny boy Premier we've got.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: This is an absolute disgrace. You bludgeon your legislation through. You've worked these Members day after day, night after night. You want reasonable debate and then you, as a figure of authority in this province, stand up and make a boyish statement like that. I said I believe I was ill, and I don't know where I was on February 12. know where I was on February 16.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would ask the Premier of. this province to withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were you in the House on February 16 or weren't you?

MRS. JORDAN: Read Hansard. I don't know where I was. I said I believe I might have been ill.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if that Premier has any hope of trying to get his bludgeoned public-hidden legislation through this Legislature, he

[ Page 2766 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw any statement that she wishes to be withdrawn. All statements and any statement. s Unconditionally, all statements. Everything. I don't want any association with it at all.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't really care, speaking to section 12, Madam Chairman, what this less-than-credible Premier thinks of me. But I do care what is in the legislation of the Province of British Columbia, and the assurance from that boy that the Minister's word is better than mine carries no weight at all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are not speaking to the motion.

MRS. JORDAN: On section 12 we would like to see it spelled out quite clearly for the Minister's own benefit, for the benefit of the legislation and for the benefit of the future of this Legislature, and the public, that there will be a report brought into this House which will clearly indicate what the activities of this commission are and what its finances are. The Premier, who has been flapping up and down, told me it was in section 12.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): All I tried to point out…to reopen section 11 is one thing, but section 12 just simply says that all the expenses of the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act should come out of consolidated revenue. Really, I don't know how we can flog that much longer. If you want to talk about the report, it should have been done in section 11.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I appreciate that, but it was the Premier himself, when I raised this question under section 11, who said it was in section 12. Now did that Premier deliberately try to mislead this poor innocent Member? I wouldn't dare to use the words that he uses, but the Premier himself said, "Refer to section 12; that is where the public disclosure before this Legislature would take place — that it was written in." So I must be in order, Madam Chairman, if the Premier himself said so. Unless he doesn't know what he is doing.

So I would ask again through you, the Minister, would he amend this section next week to make it very clear in the legislation that there will be a report of this commission's activities brought before this House on an annual basis. This is no reflection against the Minister or his character. I don't want to get involved. But I think he himself, if he were sitting on his side of the House, would not only suggest that his is a rightful part of his legislation, but that he would demand that it be made part of the legislation.

So again, I would ask, Madam Chairman, if he would do this. I won't bring in an amendment. If he will do it himself, it will be his good judgment. I am sure it would be much appreciated by all Members of he House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 12 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister not going to answer, Madam Chairman?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thanks, I appreciate the Hon. Minister's help, and I will yield to this, Madam Chairman, But I find it most distressing that the Premier directed me, when I was under section 11, to section 12. In view of the fact that this can only leave us with the impression that the Premier doesn't know what he is doing, could we reopen section 11 please for the purpose of this discussion?

MS. CHAIRMAN: No. I don't think so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted that section 11 be reopened?

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I would like to speak through you to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Would he please undertake to bring into this House an amendment to his Act, that would make it very clear in the legislation that there will be an annual report of the activities of the Alcohol and Drug Commission brought before this Legislature? Is the Minister prepared to give us some assurance on this?

Well, I take it the blank stare, Madam Chairman, that I am getting across the floor means "No." This, Madam Chairman, gives us cause for even more concern. The Hon. Member for Victoria has questioned about the alcohol and drug and tobacco education fund. We have had no accounting of that before this Legislature. Each Minister we touch on, we find it is under another Minister. The Minister of Rehabilitation says it is under the Minister of Finance.

We find that this commission is trying to make its financial statement to the Minister, but we'd like to know where the money is coming from for this commission. I don't recall anything in the estimates, and it seems to be coming out of general revenue, but

[ Page 2767 ]

is some of the Alcohol and Drug and Tobacco Education Fund going to be used, or is it a separate fund?

Well, consolidated revenue…just how much is involved in all this. If we don't have a report before the Legislature, how are we to know what money was spent and where it was spent. If we don't have a report before the Legislature how are we to know what activities this commission is embarking on.

The matter of drug usage, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse is serious, particularly this matter of drug usage, and is what the Minister himself has described as a crisis in the Province of British Columbia. If the Minister had given me his assurance that it was coming in, and then he had accepted an amendment, I could have accepted it.

But, Mr. Minister, it just isn't good enough for us to stand here and have a wrangle such as we had before, and then take your word that there will be a report placed before this House. There's just no way that this House can vote for an "Open Sesame" on all sorts of pilot programmes which we well need, and which we want to see, and some of the stable programmes without the assurance that there will be a report made before this Legislature.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, the Premier himself told me that I couldn't raise this under section 11; it was under 12. But I went to 12 and it wasn't that.

HON. MR. COCKE: There are two reports.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister of Health Services would like to clarify the situation, perhaps this would be helpful. Madam Chairman, we have no recourse if the Minister is not going to amend this section, so that the people of British Columbia and this Legislature will be assured of a report …

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't gamble with people's democratic rights, Mr. Member. We want an assurance from the Minister, in writing, properly drafted legislation, that there will be a report brought before this Legislature or we'll have no course but to vote against it. And we don't want to. We support the bill. We think the Minister has every opportunity to got down and perhaps really do something about this very serious problem.

For him to sit on false pride over whether he is going to bring in a report or not, when it is our responsibility to see that hastily drafted legislation is corrected before we support it, is completely incompatible with the impression and the work that he's trying to do and create in this Legislature.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member has the right to move an amendment to the section if she so chooses.

MRS. JORDAN: With leave of the House, Madam Chairman, just for a few minutes to draft the amendment, I would like to do so.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 11 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: No, no! I'm on the floor. This is just another reason. Why is the Premier trying to push this through — push, push, push? What are you trying to hide? It's our responsibility, when you start doing these little fancy tricks to hide and cover up the legislation, Madam Chairman, to do it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It's all right. We're quite capable of drawing our own. We are sincerely most concerned as to why there is not this provision within this bill. We know that there is $2 million in the alcohol drug education fund for which there's been no accounting before this House. I would assume if this commission is to do its work that it indeed is going to need more funds, which may be very justifiable.

We're finding ourselves in a position where much of the information from the Ministers is coming not on the floor of this House but out in the corridor through the Press. We must have this assurance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order, Hon. Member for Columbia River?

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that I just, on behalf of the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)….

AN HON. MEMBER: Has she lost her voice?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm going to come to it if you'll give me a chance. I sought a piece of paper for her for a proposed amendment to a bill and then I find that the piece of paper says "Mr. So-and-So to move in committee of the whole House on Bill No. so-and-so intituled An Act…" Now I don't know how "Mr. So-and-So from North Okanagan" is going to be able to propose an amendment to a bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order, Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: On the point about the Hon. Member's statement, if he'd take a look at the Interpretation Act, "his" includes "hers."

[ Page 2768 ]

MR. CHABOT: The Member for North Okanagan wants to propose an amendment here….

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is the amendment, please?

MR. CHABOT: The amendment is being drafted at the moment. It will be just a few minutes, if the House just wants to wait for a few moments for the amendment to be ready.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I notice the "Fifth" Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is anxious to go home. Those clients won't wait.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Member must speak to the section or take his seat.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I wish you could control the impatience of the Premier. I know he's tired. I know that …

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member get on with the business of the House and read the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to section 11 of the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act which would read, subsection c, "that an annual report and financial statement be presented to the Legislature within 15 days of commencement of sitting."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass? The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: Aah….

HON. MR. LEVI: We spent four months putting this thing together with a great deal of sincerity and with a great deal of interest from thousands of people in this province and we have the Member standing there chipping away at an Act with all good faith that you've had from us that we will table the report. You're making a big issue about this.

MRS. JORDAN: This is legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's what?

MRS. JORDAN: It's legislation.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's legislation that we're bringing in that you didn't bring in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Talk about being chippy.

HON. MR. LEVI: You stand there and you start talking about little items like this. You have no consideration about the problem out there. What we want to do is move on the problem.

MR. CHABOT: You used to say you'd accept amendments if they're reasonable amendments. What's unreasonable about that?

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I think that Minister's attitude is a typical reason why we have to scrutinize this legislation so closely. I'm not condemning him in any way for anything he has in mind to do under this bill. To suggest that this opposition is not as concerned about the drug problem in British Columbia as anyone else is pure hypocrisy.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please speak to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Every time, in speaking to this amendment asking for an annual report to this Legislature, you dare to question this Minister, he gets his hackles up. He certainly is more holier-than-thou. He speaks as if he's the only person in British Columbia who has any concern about anybody else. I suggest that simply is not true. Every Member in this Legislature is concerned about people, concerned about British Columbia and concerned about the legislation.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly speak to the amendment, please?

MRS. JORDAN: This amendment is necessary, Madam Chairman, because of the very attitude of this Member. Just because we would like to have properly drafted legislation before the House…. I asked him in a very, very quiet debatable manner, until the Premier got into it, about this. We were quite prepared to accept the fact that it may have been omitted in the printing. These things can happen. But when a Minister of the Crown stands up and gives you his word he will bring in an annual report and then when you ask to have it legally enshrined, as is our duty, he becomes so, in his own words, "chippy" and defensive, one indeed feels there's every necessity for the acceptance of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I suggest that it be accepted; that the Minister is not always going to be the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

[ Page 2769 ]

or, as he put in this Act illegally, the "Minister of Human Resources." You can't sit there, Mr. Minister, and say one thing and then do another and get uptight because you've used the wrong term in the Act. We're quite willing to accept that, that's fine. But not when we ask you to put in proper wording that an annual report will be put in and then get all uptight and defensive about that. It just isn't consistent and it certainly doesn't do anything to attract the confidence of any Members in this House.

I hope, Madam Chairman, that this amendment will be accepted. It's a very simple one. It's a very legitimate amendment. It merely asks for the annual report of this commission and the annual financial statement of this commission to be presented before this Legislature so that we needn't get into this sort of hassle if it doesn't appear next year. The Members can carry out their duty and debate properly what in fact is the business of this House and the business of the people of British Columbia.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking on the amendment, Madam Chairman, I'm really appalled. This is a reasonable amendment that has been proposed and it has been proposed in good faith. The Premier used to say not too many months ago in the fall session: "If there are good ideas from the opposition, if you have amendments bring your amendments forward." I think the amendment is a reasonable one, given in good faith. If you are really going to be willing….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Speak to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: In speaking to the amendment, the government has indicated that we will…something comes from the opposition that they will give consideration. I'm asking him at this time to give consideration to this very simple, logical, reasoned type of amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 11 approved with amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: We've already passed section 12. We've been through that.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 173, Alcohol and Drug Commission Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 102, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 102; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, through you to the Minister, I would like to ask him why he wouldn't consider raising the initial capital to $50 million.

There's a big job to be done in British Columbia in the area of loans and incentives to secondary industry. This whole programme has been talked about for nearly a year now. I'm sure the Minister's aware that in the constituency that I represent there are many, many people who want to come before this corporation with a view to taking part in the benefits from it, particularly in the incentive loans.

If we are to maintain the balance that we would like to see between bigger companies and government and the smaller individual enterprises, it is the individual enterprises that are going to need the money. A big company can generally get its capital financing but a small company has the difficulty. It's they who can't get the better interest rate. It's the individual, who has an idea and can put this together with the help of this corporation, who needs this money. I just feel that with $25 million you hardly get enough to get started. If you get two or three big ones in there with $1 million apiece, it won't be any

[ Page 2770 ]

time before that's whittled away and the directors are going to look at that and say, "Well, it is a good idea, but after all, this bigger one is proven."

I know that the Minister feels that this won't happen. I think we would all like to feel that. But these things do happen. If you had $50 million, the corporation has a better chance to get on its feet and remain independent, to get more money out to cover its overhead when the interest rates start coming in — the benefits to it. It's got a bigger base from which it would work; $25 million just isn't that much. Also, with the $50 million, you could get a better dispersement around the province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I appreciate what the Hon. Member has said because it is the intention of this to help small business, although they must make a case that they could live. I wish the Hon. Member would bear in mind two things.

First, we can always come back to the Legislature. Secondly, under section 11 of the Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can advance to the corporation by way of, loan to increase its lending power further, sums up to $100 million. That really is a lot.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 3 approved with amendment.

On section 4.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. While there is much in this Act that we feel is good and has the potential for good, we just simply cannot support the government in any way, shape or form using taxpayers' money on a share basis in any private corporation in British Columbia.

It boils down to too much risk on the part of the taxpayers' money. If the industry goes defunct, even though there may well be assets, in the end it's the taxpayer who is going to have to make it up. The bill provides for the backing of money through other banks rather than the low-interest loan concept from the corporation itself. So it's not going to be generating the revenues that it could generate.

We feel very strongly that if taxpayers want to become partners in companies, then they should do it on their own. We've listened to the Liberals talk about our concern and what their position is. They've talked about selective investing. But, Mr. Minister, you must know as well as I do the track record of the federal Liberal government in putting taxpayers' money into private businesses.

The incentive programme that they brought into British Columbia a few years ago, which gave a one-third capital grant to the companies, has resulted in the area that I represent in a 40 per cent failure. The incentive really is taken out. In some of these cases, the stimulation and the incentive was to go into failure. I suggest that this may well happen when the government is a partner. As that business gets on its feet….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could happen with a loan too, you know.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Minister, but with a loan the incentive is to pay it off as soon as the interest rate gets to a conventional rate. And when it's paid off, there is the incentive of profit, if they're on their own. As long as government is a partner, then government is going to have an inhibiting effect on profit. Management isn't going to be free to pursue matters as aggressively as they would like to.

If the corporation is depending upon its shares and its value being returned in dividends, really most of the companies in Canada today only pay anywhere from 2.5 to 4 per cent a year in their dividend. So it really isn't a good investment for the people of British Columbia. If you're getting a 10 per cent dividend, the Minister knows as well as I know that it's a very, very high-risk venture.

Mr. Minister, through you Madam Chairman, any government does have an inhibiting effect on business. If you left the incentive there, gave them the encouragement through low-interest loans, take the assets of the company — if they want to mortgage their homes, Mr. Minister, that is part of being an independent businessman. You put up the collateral. That's part of the incentive for making a success. Leave that incentive there. You can get a better return for the people of British Columbia on their money by investing it in much more secure things than a partnership of small businesses.

The limit is $1 million, Mr. Minister, in this investment. Really, you're elbowing your way in through the small businessman. The small businessman has enough problems without having any type of big partner. I would imagine that many people will want to take advantage of this development corporation for the simple reason that they want to be independent and they don't want any partners at all. This would be inhibiting in that area.

Mr. Minister, we feel that the role of government is to stimulate secondary industry under all the conditions that we've previously discussed; to create an economic climate in which such an industry can survive and do well and bring a return to the Crown through taxes on the wages that are paid, through

[ Page 2771 ]

taxes on the corporation itself, through taxes on the machinery — all the legitimate avenues that bring a guaranteed return to the people of British Columbia without any of the risk.

It's almost like making British Columbia a casino with the taxpayers' money, Mr. Minister. We believe in incentive, yes — but participation by government, no. Individual enterprise, yes, Mr. Minister, but compulsory government elbowing-in or taking over, which this will be — no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not compulsory.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, there are going to be instances where the commission or the corporation will say, "If you want this loan, then we want so much of the action." The Minister is aware of this. There will be certain things that will be attractive to this corporation as an investment. This will influence their decision on where that money goes, so it will lead, at times, to compulsory invasion by government on the basis of the loan. That is a very bad policy, Mr. Minister.

The other thing is that in doing this, you are using the small businessman's tax dollars and the citizens' tax dollars to set up small business in competition to the fellow who is providing the money. If the Crown is a partner in the business, then quite obviously the Crown is going to lean towards that business. Intentionally or unintentionally you are going to create an unequal situation — an unfair situation where the business that is associated with the Crown through the development corporation, having the government as a partner, is going to get concessions that the average small businessman, who is providing the money in the first place, isn't going to get.

The Minister must realize that he's not always going to be Minister, and the people who are appointed here are not always going to be there. He has the responsibility to guard against this type of encroachment by government in the private sector.

Mr. Minister, it has been a stated policy of your party and the Members, including yourself, who signed the Waffle manifesto that public ownership is an essential recognition for true industrial democracy. This Act, instead of doing what it should do, and being what it should be — which is an incentive to secondary industry and assistance to secondary industry and the development of a good strong individual enterprise section of our society — this Act is in fact going to be an erosion by government into the private sector and they are providing the money and that gives them the club.

Mr. Minister, we have said all day and consistently that we cannot accept the risk that goes with putting taxpayers' money into risky business ventures — into any type of private business ventures. We do not believe that government should be elbowing its way in and taking over small business and other industries in British Columbia. We do not believe that government should use a carrot like this; use the powers that it gives it to feed its way into a little industry which couldn't survive or couldn't get started without this help. That industry is put at a disadvantage. Therefore, Madam Chairman, I would move an amendment to the bill — section 4(a): delete in the first line "or purchase of shares."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, speaking to the amendment, there is a difference of philosophy here. There is no doubt about it. We think, that the corporation should be flexible and we think there will be occasions when there should be a partnership concept invoked, with the consent of the other side, where the public will have equity. It might be starting a new industry — you say in unfair competition with others. It might be starting the only industry we will have to produce a certain thing we need in this province. That's one example.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, look at the doughnut situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't say that all of the public enterprises have been unsuccessful either, because you've got some that are very successful ones — Polymer Corporation or Pan-Arctic — that's a great success and it's strictly partnership — 49 per cent federal and 51 per cent the consortium. It's been a tremendous success. But anyway we have this difference.

We can't accept the amendment, We want to be flexible, look at everything, but have the tools to do a different thing for a different situation as that situation may demand it. So we reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 26

PAIRED

[ Page 2772 ]

Section 4 approved, On section 5.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same point.

MRS. JORDAN: It is indeed, Madam Chairman. We cannot be part of a bill that uses taxpayers' money to take over their own businesses. This is a philosophical aspect of the government that is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia and to this party. Taxpayers' money is not for investment in private business. With this in mind I move an amendment to delete section 5(b) and renumber.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, the Member has made basically the same point, and we make basically the same point: we cannot accept this amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: We look at this section 5 and there is a lot of power and ability to invest without necessity of acquiring shares in the corporation. There are lots of other ways of securing the money which you might loan. I would hope that when you do loan money to a corporation that it will be at an attractive rate in order for it to be an inducement for them to set up a manufacturing plant which will in turn create jobs in British Columbia.

When one looks at the rate of unemployment we have in British Columbia at this time, it is most important that we have attractive interest rates for loans.

You can "lend money to any person on such security and upon such terms and conditions as to repayment or otherwise as the corporation may consider advisable." That's ample, really, without the necessity of constantly wanting to get in there and control the action.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: You can. You can by section 5. Without the necessity of having section 5(b) you can encourage and induce people to establish manufacturing plants in the Province of British Columbia. You go on to other subsections in section 5. Subsection (c) says: "guarantee the payment of a loan or part thereof or all or part of the interest thereon, made by another lender to any person." section 5(d): "take security by way of mortgage, charge, hypothecation, or assignment of, or on, real or personal property or otherwise."

There's a lot of ability for the government to encourage investment in British Columbia without the necessity of the government having that control which they constantly want. Each and every other bill we've looked at — there's always this control that's wanted, through either a minority share position or a majority share position. Really, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that it's necessary to have this particular subsection which we're asking to delete.

We're not asking to delete a major part of that section, just a small part. You can still invest and encourage industrial development in British Columbia without the need of purchasing shares within that company, You can encourage and you can induce through investments and loans. It's that old philosophical hang-up you have of control of the industry that we're attempting to delete. We're not asking for much. We'll give you the rest of the section, which gives you ample opportunity to do at least what your prime objective would be.

I hope that you'll give this serious consideration because I really think that it's worthy of consideration. I'm sure that it's a point which the government will accept tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Section 5(b), when you put it together, reads like this: "Notwithstanding any other Act, the corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out its objects and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may, for the purposes of this Act…purchase shares in any company."

Now what are they going to use for purchasing? They're going to use the funds that are not necessarily surplus funds, but funds that are tax dollars paid by well-meaning people to, we trust, a wellmeaning administration. These funds are to be used at the discretion of the corporation.

We might not have an objection if we knew who the corporation was and if we knew what their credits were. But we have to take a blindfolded approach. We

[ Page 2773 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who is "we"?

MR. SCHROEDER: We here in the Legislature; the people of British Columbia; the people I'm talking for.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I continue, Mr. Chairman? Bless your socks, here we go.

Among the other things that we do not have: we have no guarantee of a return. Not under this legislation, We are not going to invest in a corporation or in shares in a company that will guarantee a return. We have no guaranteed profit. Just listen to me. These are things that we don't have, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

We have no dividends that are guaranteed. We have no promise that we are going to recoup even the investment that we're going to make. Not only that….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's speaking against the Kelowna Charter. Flag him down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Kelowna Charter is a wayward son. (Laughter).

MR. SCHROEDER: Are you having trouble controlling the House, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, only some.

MR. SCHROEDER: Among the other things we have: we have no limits established for us. It just says "purchase shares in any company." It doesn't say purchase 30 per cent or purchase 49 per cent or 51 per cent, which are some very common figures. It doesn't say 80 or 100 per cent. It doesn't say.

So guess what you're doing. You're asking the people of British Columbia to give you the authority to go ahead with this corporation with no selection of company, no selection of type of shares, no guarantee, no profit, no dividends, no recoup and no limitations. You're asking us this. I'm sorry, we can't do it, In all good faith and for the people who we represent out there on the flood plains, there's no way we can do it. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I'm very, very upset with the lousy businessmen over there. A businessman sometimes will be seeking equity because with that equity he can borrow money from the Royal Bank or from other banking sources. He can get more spin-off with a partner than he can ever get with a bond because the same bondholder will hold it again. Therefore, it is to his advantage to take equity. I feel that you're utter failures as businessmen to not understand this.

We don't want control. This is to develop small secondary businessmen. We're going to make a lot of Liberals very, very happy with this bill if you'd only move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, let me read to you the industrial philosophy of the Minister of Industrial Development of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who is introducing this bill. "A socialist society can only emerge through popular struggle. In immediate terms we will probably find that ordinary men and women will be a lot more sympathetic to our proposals for radical change…"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: "…if we are there with them in their day-to-day struggles in the workplace and schools and communities."

The Minister endorses the statement "public ownership is an essential recognition for true industrial democracy…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order! Order, Hon. Member! Would you speak to the amendment, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to disturb you at all. But I would like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that this was the Waffle manifesto that I was quoting from….

MR. CHABOT: The acquisition of shares, that's what it's all about.

MRS. JORDAN: The acquisition of shares in

[ Page 2774 ]

private corporations, new little fledgling companies — doughnut companies. It's signed by one Alex Macdonald, Attorney General….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're allowed to talk with great latitude during the second reading. But in the committee stage you must speak to the section.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your concern, and I wouldn't want to upset you at all. I am speaking to the amendment, which deletes in section 5, subsection….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, it's not a matter of bothering me, it's a matter of speaking to the amendment, and observing the rules.

MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the amendment, I'm suggesting that the reason we have to make this amendment is because this government is utilizing taxpayers' money to force a philosophy upon the little people of British Columbia. We cannot support this, and this is why we have moved the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you know, it's been quite a day. We've sat here, and we've listened to insults from across the floor. And this isn't the first time, it goes on and on….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, don't give us that stuff.

But speaking to the amendment, the fact of the matter is the people of British Columbia want this — a capital development corporation with opportunities in all directions. Let's not emasculate this bill. We want the bill, the people want the bill, and little businessmen in this province want the bill. There's a good indication of one right there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Little Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: I would like to make one small point. The banks are forbidden by the federal government to purchase shares, so they conveniently started a new outfit called Royal Nat. to purchase equity shares to help businessmen. And here are these so-called businessmen trying to deny the help that small businessmen need.

MRS. JORDAN: You just want to sell your ice-cream company to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just want to make a couple of short, quick points on this particular section of this Act here this Friday evening.

Now the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) while introducing the Act says that Ottawa does this — because look at Pan Arctic. Pan Arctic is a very large corporation set up by Act of parliament to do something the independent oil companies did not feel they were prepared to do because of the high risk involved.

This British Columbia government has gone into individual enterprises by an Act of this Legislature. So you can be flexible. If you want to go into this type of deal, bring it in to this Legislature, and let us have a look at it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you support it?

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say we'd support it. I said we will take a look at it. You have the legislative programme open to you to do anything you want to do. All we're saying is that we want to know what you're going to do. By passing this bill, we just pass you a carte blanche for all the dough you want up to $50 million, that is. You can go around and you can invest in any company in British Columbia.

Now the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) says that if you have Big Brother as a partner, and an equity, you can go to the bank. Well if you have Big Brother as a partner, you don't need to go to the bank. What's the Member thinking about? It's right here in the Act. The government can loan the company money. Why is he going to need to go to the bank, unless the government is planning on going broke, or something?

It's written right in the Act that you can loan….

AN HON. MEMBER: You ever heard of cheap money?

MR. PHILLIPS: Cheap money? Social Credit knows a lot about cheap money.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Bank loans are not cheap money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the problem with this legislation. I explained this to you in the House the other night, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this is a matter for discussion in second reading. It was well discussed, fully discussed, and I wish you would keep your comments relative to the amendment.

[ Page 2775 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly am, because I am discussing whether the government should become partners in this business or not, under this particular Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this was fully discussed during second reading….

MR. PHILLIPS: Not the point I am going to bring up, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are to stick to the amendment, Hon. Member. Relative points to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point I am going to bring up is this:l don't know who it was, but somebody just said here on the floor of the Legislature that businessmen wanted this. Now I want to tell you something….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I've asked you to stick to the amendment….

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sticking to the amendment. Great Scott!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you stick a little closer?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am! What I'm saying is you say small businessmen want this. So I'm a doughnut manufacturer…. (Laughter). I'm doing reasonably well, but then a couple of young fellows come along….

AN HON. MEMBER : Come along and spoil the holes, maybe? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Then a couple of young fellows who've just graduated from BCIT come along, and while they were at BCIT, they learned how to make doughnuts. So they go over to my friend over here, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, and they say: "Mr. Minister, the two of us want to start up a doughnut manufacturing company with real live holes in these doughnuts…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm sure that it's amusing, but it's not relative to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a good point. You bet it is the crux of this amendment right here. You better believe it, yes sir! I want to tell you, this is it right here. I hit home. I hit home with the point here.

So Big Brother….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm asking you to stick to the amendment….

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sticking to the amendment! The objects of the corporation, or the powers of the corporation, are to help little companies get started. Right? I am on the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would ask you to stick to the amendment or resume your seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: The amendment says, if I'm not mistaken, that you shouldn't be able to go and buy shares in this deal, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete the section.

MR. PHILLIPS Well, all right. If you delete the section you won't be able to buy shares, right? Now the point I'm making is that the government comes along and buys shares in this new company with these two young fellows, and they're in business, and they've got the government as their partners.

They haven't borrowed the money, they're not responsible now. They've got Big Brother government as their partner. Whether the doughnuts are big or small, or if they lose money, Big Brother government's in the business with them, and Big Brother government's the one that's going to suffer the loss.

So they get into business, and they're relying on Big Brother government's unlimited money. Maybe by having Big Brother interested in this business, they're going to be able to sell doughnuts to the government. Maybe the ferries, or something.

Now, what kind of position does this put the other doughnut company in? Maybe these fellows have been working for 20 years, they've got a nice business built up, but these two young fellows come along here, and they take on Big Brother government as a partner, and they get all the government business. This established business here, where does it go?

It's caught up in the rush of socialism, the floodgates are open, and this is exactly what this is. Absolutely. Small businessmen don't want Big Brother government for competition. No way do they! No way! You can shove that down my throat all you want. Small businessmen don't want Big Brother government for competition. They pay their taxes to Big Brother government, and Big Brother government comes round and puts them out of business. No way!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we're not talking about paying taxes, we're talking about whether or not….

[ Page 2776 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, where are you going to get the money to buy the shares?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the amendment is to delete section 5(b) and renumber, and the section that is applicable here is "purchase shares in any company." Would you keep your remarks as to whether or not that should be allowed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what I'm saying, that the government shouldn't buy shares, because as soon as the government buys shares in any of these small companies, they are in competition with already established companies and that is unfair competition. Now, do you understand that?

The first thing you know, we're starting up….

AN HON. MEMBER: O.K. You've made your point.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've made my point? Will you accept the amendment then?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying is that this is unfair competition, Now we're going into the insurance business, and what's going to happen to the body shops that are already established. There are going to be a whole group of new body shops start up, and they are going to have Big Brother government carry them by the arm right down the road to success.

That's the way it's going to be. What's going to happen to all the already established body shops and all the people who are trained? What's going to happen to them? That's why this is poor legislation. And it's socialist legislation, and it's horrible legislation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is, and you know it. It's Waffle legislation, and it's not even fair. If you want to go into partnership with companies and buy shares in them, you set the legislation up and bring it before the people who come down to represent those people. We'll take a look at it then.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bring it down for one specific purpose and let's debate it then.

MR. PHILLIPS: This way you can go around, and my heavens, you've got the right to buy shares and manufacture baby carriages — anything at all. That's why it's unfair, and you know it's unfair, Mr. Attorney General. You loan them the money like we're suggesting, and then they're responsible. They don't have Big Brother government — it's just the same as getting it from the bank, except they get it from the government at a lower interest rate, that's all. They have to pay it back.

It hasn't worked in other jurisdictions — I pointed this out the other night — and it will not work here. I ask you in all sincerity, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, to accept this amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong the debate which has gone on in different forms all day. It has been a good debate. We take our stand in opposition to what the Members opposite are saying. We are prepared to fight on that position, and to win on that position.

We believe we must have flexible tools, flexible modern tools to aid secondary industry in this province — this should be of interest to that Hon. Member — including agricultural processing industries.

Now on the question of purchase of shares, let me just … You know, the Government of Ontario has been Conservative for how many years? Almost since Confederation. The Ontario Development Corporation Act, section 7, the objects of the corporation:

"(a) The provision of financial assistance by loan, guarantee or purchase of shares or other securities…"

That's the Conservative Government of Ontario. And all we're asking is that we be modern and have different ways to meet different situations in the economy, as the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) has said. There are occasions when partnership is the best way to start a new industry or to help an existing one. In other cases it will be loans, in other cases it will be acquisition of a plant.

Don't knock it, You're knocking Premier William Davis of Ontario, who is a true-blue Tory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick to the amendment!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I see now there's no difference between the socialist and the Conservatives. We see another example of this tonight. They agree the same, and that kind of legislation in Ontario….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, Hon. Member…. The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

[ Page 2777 ]

MR. CHABOT: You're interrupting a Member who is trying to make a statement….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my prerogative as Chairman….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's going on here? Now you're taking over the House. Did you buy shares in it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn his mike on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would someone turn the Hon. Member's microphone on?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, the government says to turn it off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure, closure!

MR. CHABOT: I'll be heard, I guess. But I never thought I'd see the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) stand up here and say that the small businessmen of British Columbia want the government to take part ownership of their businesses. That is not true. I would say that …

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't said that.

MR. CHABOT: You certainly have, because the amendment here is dealing with the purchase of shares in any company. That's what your amendment is all about, Mr. Chairman. Isn't that what the amendment's about?

MR . JORDAN: He doesn't know, he hasn't read it.

MR. CHABOT: There's sufficient incentive in section 5 for the government to encourage secondary industry or any other kind of industry in British Columbia without the necessity of putting the stranglehold on small or big industry in British Columbia. That Member, quite obviously to me and to everyone else in this assembly that wants to be honest, doesn't understand this section. He doesn't understand it at all, because it's perfectly clear it's your philosophy that you're instituting under this section (b), "purchase shares in any company." Because the Waffle manifesto says the NDP is committed to large-scale public ownership.

This is where you are attempting to infuse that policy statement of the manifesto into the Industrial Development Act. That's what you're trying to do, and I want to say that that particular subsection is not in the best interest of business and the economy, and the taxpayers of British Columbia. We will support the amendment.

HON. MR. HALL: Gotcha!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Supporting that amendment!

HON. MR. HALL: Just can't believe it.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to say that I don't understand what the government is so afraid of. If they want to get into a partnership situation with the government, I really don't see why they can't bring it before this House and have it pass for specific companies.

You want to get into that partnership situation, bring it here and let us talk about it. We may even agree with you, for all you know. This offensive piece of legislation has been included in so many Acts before this House that we've had to debate this over and over again.

I agree with the Attorney General that it's all been said and that the principle has been fully debated. I would just like to refer the House to my speech No. 7, standing in Hansard in my name (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 27

PAIRED

[ Page 2778 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you report that so that it can be recorded.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River,

MR. CHABOT: I move an amendment to section 6(1), line 1. Delete the word "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu of that "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we're talking abut taxpayers' dollars. We're talking about the investment of $1 million or more of taxpayers' dollars. I think that that kind of a decision should be made in the Legislative Assembly rather than in the cabinet chambers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But look at your own bill.

MR. CHABOT: We move the amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. We're talking about loans or investments or share participation. I move the amendments. This is where those kinds of decisions — where we're attempting to gamble with the dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia — at least we should do it out in the open, in the Legislative Assembly where people can listen to the pros and cons of the investment or the possible flushing down the drain of their tax dollars.

This is where it should be done and I move the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we can't accept that amendment. In spite of the brave words of the Kelowna Charter, this little group opposite are doing everything in their power to cripple and emasculate this Act. The people in all of the ridings of British Columbia, and particularly the small enterprises that might be helped, including the agricultural areas, ought to be told about this night And they ought to be told about yesterday morning And they ought to be told in no uncertain terms that all of these amendments are not to improve the Act but to cripple it and to prevent secondary industry That's the message.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

I say to them: if you're determined to emasculate the Act, have the courage to go back to your ridings and tell the people there that contrary to what you've said in the Kelowna Charter, you really have nothing in your hearts to offer whatsoever in the way of help to small business.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll accept the challenge of the Attorney General. I'll go home to my riding and I'll tell them tomorrow night. You bet I will.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Good.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Provincial Secretary to withdraw his words.

HON. MR. HALL: "Hell?" Certainly I'll withdraw it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: At this time I would like to point out that for a month I heard the Social Credit talk about unemployment. The first positive step to solve it and they try to sabotage an effort to help every businessman in British Columbia.

I would also like to point out at this time that a small businessman doesn't fear government or unions but big businessmen who will wipe him out at any chance they get. Those big businesses are in Ontario, so you're even against British Columbia if you vote against this bill.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to say that the demonstration on this particular amendment means that the opposition has taken a position as of today that they will do anything and say anything for political power. They'll say anything they want against British Columbia. They'll do anything they can in this House, even if it contradicts their own positions in the past, their own opposition bill on the order paper, and their own performance in the past.

I want people to understand very clearly that they hunger for power so badly that in this section

[ Page 2779 ]

they wish to emasculate the bill for nothing more than just straight political power. We refuse this amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if that Premier has said anything worth commenting on, I would. But I the point here is that the real truth comes out in these debates. The one thing that we're asking to delete is government buying shares in little companies, and we are asking for an annual report to be brought before this Legislature.

On both these points the Minister says, "If you take out the right of a government to buy shares in the little man's business, you emasculate the bill." That's what this bill is all about. It's a takeover. It's a Marxian philosophy. They don't care to stimulate industry. All they want to do is get their sticky fingers into every little business in British Columbia. That's why the Minister says that if you delete that, then we emasculate the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've sunk to a low tonight. A real low. Shame on you, shame on you. You know better.

MRS. JORDAN: Why, Madam Chairman, is the Attorney General and the industrial development officer of this province afraid to have the annual report of this British Columbia Industrial Development Corporation laid before this Legislature for debate?

As the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) says — and he's right — this is the first thing the socialist government has tried to do to create jobs in British Columbia. With that statement we agree. This government has done nothing to create jobs in British Columbia, When you put these statements together, the only thing that is proved is that this government knows of no other way to create jobs in British Columbia other than by taking taxpayers' money and putting it into small businesses in this province in a risky manner, putting other private businesses out of business and being afraid to lay an annual report before this Legislature.

Emasculate the bill, Mr. Minister? There's ample flexibility in this bill without getting your sticky fingers into this little business and risking taxpayers' dollars, and no return to the taxpayer. There are all kinds of ways to create jobs and all kinds of ways to get a good return for that development corporation for the people of British Columbia and all kinds of ways to stimulate secondary industry without ramming your Marxian philosophy down the throats of the people of British Columbia with their own money.

We support the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members to stick to the amendment and not wander so far afield. The amendment is to amend section 6, line 2, to delete "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia." Would you confine your remarks to that amendment, please.

I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think that after that attack, the Attorney General is more to be pitied than censured so I'll just carry on.

I certainly want to support this amendment. As I say, this Legislature should be making the decisions in expenditures of this type. We've seen series come to power before, all under the guise of motherhood. If you really want to do something for business in this province, first of all you create an atmosphere in which they can flourish. You've ruined that atmosphere since you came to power. That's number one.

Number two, get rid of this threat you're holding over the already established businesses by being their partner — unfair competition.

Make the decisions here in the Legislature. Why do you want carte blanche powers of anything over $1 million?

MR. CHABOT: $50 million, $100 million?

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that the Legislature should certainly have some input where you're establishing these large corporations. There's nothing wrong with accepting this amendment. We're not talking about peanuts. We're talking about $1 million. You're still going to have the powers under $1 million. The small businesses that you're talking about establishing are certainly going to be under $1 million.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't you put this restriction into your own bill if you're sincere?

MR. PHILLIPS: We were loaning people money. You are investing. There's a big difference. We were going to loan money to people. We have security the same as a bank. You are going to invest, Mr. Attorney General, and you know that. It is not too much to ask that you come back to this Legislature in expenditures over $1 million. If it's over $1 million, it's going to be a fairly large corporation. I think the people of British Columbia have a right to know.

We'll come back to the Legislature in a couple of years and you'll have shares in corporations all over the place and the Legislature won't even know it. Now is that too much to ask? No, it's not. You said you would listen. I've been sincere. I know that we need a British Columbia development corporation to

[ Page 2780 ]

This has got nothing to do with it. For you and the Premier to stand up and start accusing the Members from the north who need this in their area that they're not going to process agriculture plants, that is complete trash and I won't take any more of it in this Legislature. (Laughter).

After 46 hours of it this week and sitting overtime and daytime and nighttime — and then you try and ram it down our throats and threaten us. I've had enough threats in this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go home then.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly support it. I think you should accept it, Mr. Attorney General. If you're wise at all, you'll accept it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, while we supported the amendment regarding government corporation investment, I think that in assisting the kind of endeavours which we hope that this bill will assist, it really isn't practical with the House not in session for such a corporation to function. While $1 million is a very substantial sum of money, I could certainly foresee that timing could be very important In the case of the artificial kidney, for example, if the industry had to wait several months to obtain approval for the financing, this might well jeopardize the project. With respect, I think that the former government held authority of this nature to spend this kind of money under other Acts.

After all, while I certainly am apprehensive about government participating in the private sector, as I've stated earlier today, I think that in this instance — and this is one of the reasons that we supported the bill in second reading — one of the ways in which this government can function through a corporation is to have a reasonable degree of flexibility. But to have that flexibility they must also have responsibility.

It is our feeling that in this particular area of responsibility it would not be practical for the government, through the corporation, to have to await the approval of this Legislature in order to expedite the setting up of particular businesses. It's for this reason, which we believe to be very pertinent, that we will not support the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm very glad that we have this stand clear-cut from the Conservative Party tonight. This is something that we will circulate through the province: that on investments in shares over $1 million — it could be $10 or $15 million — you want to be able to deal quickly with that. There's no time to bring it to the Legislature. That's what the Member said. Now we know the difference between the Conservative Party in this province and Social Credit.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, on a point of order.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. WALLACE: The Leader of the Opposition has not been accurate in what I've just said. I said that we have opposed investment and supported the amendments in order to prevent this corporation investing in business. I made that very plain. For him to suggest that by my statement I am condoning the attempt of government to invest sums of $1 million and in excess of $1 million is wrong.

We opposed that. We supported the amendments. We've opposed it in other bills in this House. It is quite erroneous and mischievous for the Leader of the Opposition to make that statement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, you can read Hansard.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, the amendment is a simple one but it is directly contrary to the official Opposition's own Bill No. 6 as the last speaker has pointed out, it would provide that even in the case of a loan, we could not advance that loan to something like an alfalfa cubing plant in the Peace River without coming to the Legislature, which would be six or eight months or longer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, let's be realistic. This is a serious point for the small businesses of this province. What I'm saying is that your amendment is directly contrary, in respect to loans, to your own Bill No. 6. I'm also saying that under your own Bill No. 6, it does have the power, in section 6(c), to acquire, accept, hold, et cetera, sell, deal in by way of security, all kinds of bills, notes, negotiable paper, chattel mortgages, bills of lading, instruments, mortgages and shares — in your bill. And shares — this is hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy, political hypocrisy — all day and all night. It's right there in your own bill, blowing out of the Kelowna Charter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Cheap politics. Nothing but power-seeking, cheap politics.

[ Page 2781 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I say this: this opposition is not merely trying to hobble this bill, they're trying to kill assistance to secondary and small industry in the province.

To introduce Bill 6 a few months ago and then to oppose it so piously tonight — there's more to this than mere political inconsistency. You are trying to kill acceptance. The Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips), who has said that we're threatening him — we are threatening to expose this kind of political hypocrisy in his own riding.

We're going to go into the Peace River and say that when the opportunity came to have a vehicle whereby we could help the agricultural processing industries in his constituency, that he tried in every possible way to make that impossible for this government to do. Call that a threat or call it telling the truth. I call it the second.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, I'd like to put our party's views on this on the record.

First, I'd like to point out that time after time today we've put forward amendments which would limit the power to invest in shares. I think that we were consistent in our vote, as was the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who I think was most unfairly charged with inconsistency by the one party which has proved its inconsistency by its voting record today time after time.

There have been a few other things said tonight which we've been noticing which the government may perhaps regret tomorrow. The first thing is the tremendous applause that went up on the government side when it was announced that this was the very first thing that you have done to create jobs in this province. That's the Member who said it and that's the Member who applauded it, among others. Go ahead and deny it if you like but it's on the record now. "The first time," you say according to your own Members, that you're doing anything to create jobs.

We quite agree. We think this is about the first thing you've done. We've regretted this time after time after time in this Legislature, that you have consistently refused to face up to the unemployment problem which you yourselves have created by your actions and, in particular, your own statements.

On the amendment, Madam Chairman, we feel that putting in an amendment of this nature, which would require the corporation to come to this Legislature for loans or investments over $1 million, creates a restriction, a hobbling of this corporation which will make it difficult to perform effectively. We have our doubts whether this government will run it right. But we don't want to have this Legislature set up the legislation which in any way will make it even more difficult to run it properly. We think that it's going to have enough difficulty trying to fight back the government, if that is possible, and we think it's going to have enough difficulty helping the small businessman in this province without the political interference of the Members opposite.

We would not like to hobble it further by suggesting that for loans or investments of that nature, they must come back to this Legislature. What happens if this Legislature is not sitting?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "It can be called." Of course it can be called. What happens if we have this series of loans come up or a series of investments come up, sure it can be called together, but the opportunity may be lost. And we feel that this very much cripples the corporation.

We've seen this happen in other areas — in the federal field — and the further away this type of corporation can get from political interference, the better off it is. I regret that we've got a government which, time after time in its statements today, has announced that it wants to use this type of legislation for political objectives. But I've made my views known on that before and I won't repeat them.

As far as the specific amendment goes we feel that coming to the Legislature is not a practical proposition. We have many other objections to the bill. We'll be recording them from time to time. But we feel that coming here is not one of them.

The other point I think I should make before I sit down is that of reporting. We feel that the government, and in particular the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)…if he sets up adequate reporting provisions….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you read the bill yet?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I have. I know it's in the bill. Thanks very much. But we're now discussing section 6….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you're the one who raised it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, in actual fact I wasn't. It was raised earlier. Providing there are adequate reporting provisions, we do not feel it necessary to come to this Legislature as the amendment would require. Therefore, we in this party will oppose this amendment and we will be voting with the government on this.

[ Page 2782 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to say one thing, Madam Chairman. The Leader of the Loyal Opposition accomplished one thing today. By his "flip" on the parity bonds, which he knows are a sensitive vehicle, and his "flop" concerning this amendment he did one thing. He made Gaglardi look good. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to delete in section 6, line 2, "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 30

PAIRED

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Reported and recorded.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 6 pass?

I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Madam Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment to section 6, line 12, delete "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, " This is the powers that are contained in section 5(b) to purchase shares in any company — on which we've had a fairly lengthy debate. I think that power of control or investment, which is a philosophical investment, the decision of a major direction or a major participation in the financial affairs of a company, should be decided in this Legislative Assembly rather than behind those closed cabinet doors.

I don't think we're asking too much because it deals with strictly a share position in any company. We might be talking about a large company. We might be talking about a direction the government might be taking in its attempt to control the B.C. Telephone Company.

We think that any discussion or any attempt on the part of the government to gain a share control of the B.C. Telephone Company should be decided by the Legislative Assembly. We also think that if the government wants a share control position in Westcoast Transmission, that decision should be made in the Legislative Assembly instead of behind those closed cabinet doors. And many other companies — if the government wants to take over Inland Natural Gas, which they've indicated they're out to control through the acquisition of shares, that decision should be made in the Legislative Assembly instead of behind those closed cabinet doors.

There are many areas in which the taxpayers' dollars could be invested. When one looks at some of the resolutions that appeared at the convention of the New Democratic Party just last fall….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly confine your remarks to the amendment?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, my remarks will be confined to the deletion of "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" from this section and adding, in lieu of that, the words "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

In order to relate that to the necessity for this action it's only fair that I explain just what the aspirations, aims and objectives of the government are, Madam Chairman. They have indicated through resolutions at the convention that they should take over MacMillan Bloedel. This legislation gives them the authority to take over MacMillan Bloedel through the acquisition of shares behind closed cabinet doors. All I'm asking is….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you're voting against the bill that you brought forward yourself in this Legislature.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. All I'm asking is that if the government wants to take a major share position in any corporation in British Columbia, it's only fair that the public of British Columbia have an opportunity of expressing….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you could acquire shares through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in

[ Page 2783 ]

MR. CHABOT: When the B.C. Electric was taken over it was done in this Legislative Assembly; it wasn't done behind those closed cabinet doors. All we're asking is that it be done out in the daylight, instead of behind those padded, soundproof, insulated green doors.

I think the amendment is finally reaching through to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). He appears to understand what I'm trying to relate by the amendment which I'm proposing, and that is that if the government moves in a large way through the acquisition of any equity position of any corporation of British Columbia, then it should be done in the daylight, so that everybody in British Columbia…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you put that in your own bill?

MR. CHABOT: …will have an opportunity to express their opinions or to have their opinions expressed through their duly elected representatives.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to be long about this, but once again the official Opposition are taking a position directly contrary to their own bill. You seem determined to drive that nail through your own political coffin. You've been doing it twice, because all through your own bill all of the powers, including the powers to acquire shares in private companies, are to be exercised…. Section 6(2) of Bill 6 says: "The powers conferred by this shall be exercised only with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

So you're voting directly not only against the Kelowna Charter, but against your own legislation put forward at this session of the Legislature.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, the remarks made by the Attorney General are correct in this regard. We too, find it inconsistent that legislation would be on the order paper in the name of Mr. Phillips, the Hon. Member for South Peace River, dealing with this point, even though amendments to other legislation come from other Members of his party which completely contradict the wording of his bill.

The point that I'd like to make is this: we feel that this type of corporation, which is set up for a fairly specific purpose, should not be hobbled and hampered in a way which will make it ineffective. In approval in principle, all parties in this House approved of the idea of a corporation designed to assist….

AN HON. MEMBER: We voted against it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. With these flip-flops, I keep getting mixed up as to what they're for and what they're against.

In any event, three parties voted in principle in favour of having such a corporation. While we have differed with the government in other legislation dealing with trust accounts and with general revenue, which are different things….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, the amendment is designed to bring this back into the Legislature in cases where any shares are purchased. We think that that puts a restriction on the corporation which is simply unworkable, and we shall not support it.

The fact is that perhaps we'd be better off without section 3 entirely. I won't put an amendment to that effect, but I would like to re-emphasize the point that we are worried about too much political interference. We are worried about this corporation not being used as the objectives set out — as we voted on in principle — but being used for some of the concepts that have been brought up in today's debate when dealing with other bills.

Nevertheless, we will vote against this amendment because we feel that this creature, this development corporation, must be given every chance to succeed. The chances of success are probably not all that enormous — they are obviously going to take a number of losses as well as some successes — and we think we shouldn't hobble them any further than we have to.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: The most inconsistent statement I've ever heard in this Legislative Assembly was made by the leader of the Liberal Party just now. He stands in this assembly and says that we flip and we flop. Talk about a flip-flop like I've never seen before! On amendment….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Ah, there's the chickadee.

On section 5(b), the Liberal Party voted — and that Member there, the leader of the Liberal Party, voted — in favour of our amendment dealing with the purchase of shares in any company, in which we

[ Page 2784 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a different section — a different point.

MR. CHABOT: No, section 6 says: "The powers conferred by clause (b) of section 5 shall only be exercised with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." One moment he's opposed to the purchase of shares…

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bring back McGeer. Bring back McGeer.

MR.CHABOT: …in any company.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Where's McGeer?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Then when we come to discuss the powers and how they're going to be administered through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, he says he's going to support it. It's quite obvious that their financial critic is away tonight. Let's call a recess….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please confine your remarks to the motion before us, not the question as to who's absent.

MR. CHABOT: Well, he's made remarks about us tonight, and I think it's quite obvious that we should have a short recess, get on the long-distance phone line, get their financial critic, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, out of New Jersey and get him back here into British Columbia to straighten out this little Liberal group which is floundering all over the place tonight.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. SCHROEDER: Madam Chairman, if I could just sort of gather the chicks under my wings here for just a little while…(Laughter). We heard the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) scream at the top of his voice, levelling us because we were being inconsistent in this regard — I am narrowing my remarks to the amendment here. He read for us a section out of a bill — which, by the way, I don't know if he had the right to read, but if he did, I do. He read from section 6(c): "…acquire, accept, hold, exchange, transfer, assign, sell, dispose of or, deal in…" but he left out the phrase which identifies the reason for dealing in the shares, for which he accused us of hypocrisy.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, and he is, but I'm also smart enough to get this figured out. When it says it right here in black and white it's not too hard to understand. It says: "…to deal in by way of security…" — and that, my good friend, is different than dealing by way of equity. It says: "…by way of security all kinds of bills and notes negotiable da-da-da-da-da-da-da…" and then down there it says "shares." Right? Therefore I would have to say…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aw, come off that!

MR. SCHROEDER: …that one is an equity position and one is a security position. Therefore I would ask you, in all kindness, would you withdraw the edict that says that we are a bunch of hypocrites over on this side? I have had that levelled at me all kinds of times, but never in regard to securities.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This section 6(c), is quite clear. It says, "acquire…by way of security" which, incidentally, is the same thing — you can take shares or you can take a guarantee or a debenture — it's all the same.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. Just a minute. It goes on: "…shares, stocks, bonds," et cetera, at the bottom. And it says for the objects of the corporation…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, no, no, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're totally inconsistent. You've been inconsistent all day on that point.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, every time that Minister opens his mouth about this bill and his ability as a businessman, it makes us more nervous than ever. I assure you, Madam Chairman, through you to the Minister, it's making the people out in this province even more nervous. They are quaking and shaking as they have never before because they don't know what's going to happen to their tax dollars.

In speaking to this amendment about letting the sun shine into this Legislature — as the Minister always likes to say — we say let the sun shine in on the multi-million dollar investments he's going to

[ Page 2785 ]

Madam Chairman, I have the honour to represent an area in which there is a little, tiny telephone company called the Okanagan Telephone Company. That little ol' company has a little ol' feeling that under this little ol' bill they're going to be taken over by this little ol' government. All we're saying is, "Let's bring this intention before this House and let it be debated as it should properly." Don't let me, as the MLA, get a phone call in the middle of the night from the manager of that company saying, "What can you do? The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce has taken us over." And the shareholders will cry, "Help! We didn't get our money."

This government has stated that it doesn't believe in being responsible for the financial damage that this legislation does.

What about West Kootenay Light and Power? Under this bill the Minister wouldn't have to bring such an intention before this Legislature, and that should be — investing millions of dollars in equity shares without coming before this Legislature.

When I hear the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) talk about, "There's no need to bring this sort of thing before the House," I would just point out, Madam Chairman, the need is here. The Liberal track record for frittering away the taxpayers' dollars in British Columbia is longer than the stories of the Minister. They invest our dollars in spaghetti factories and in cheap beer for under-age youths in Ontario. In their industrial development incentive programme in British Columbia….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Clean it up! That's what we are saying, Mr. Member. The responsibility of the Liberal Party to the taxpayer….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please direct your remarks to the Chair and remain to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, all this government would have to do is to do what the federal government did in the Okanagan, invest $10 million without the consent of this Legislature, without the scrutiny of the Legislature — have the same failure rate of 40 per cent that they had — and that would be $4 million of the taxpayers' $10 million right down the drain.

Madam Chairman, we feel that if the Liberals want to back this government this way, that's a matter for the public to be concerned about. But we don't feel the Government of British Columbia should behave that way. We think $4 million dollars out of British Columbia taxpayers' pockets is a great deal of money.

Now I don't know where the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) came from. Maybe he shuffled millions around like toothpicks or pennies in a poker game. But, this official Opposition feels that type of expenditure must come before this House, must be debated here and must, in the Minister's own words, be opened up to the public. Mr. Minister, let the sun shine in. No Minister can stand up as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did and say, "When there is an investment of a couple of a million bucks, you've got to move fast," because that's not the type of investment the public should be backing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I meant the Member for Oak Bay, I'm sorry. His master's crank. There's no way, Madam Chairman, that $1, $2, or $3 million of taxpayers' money should ever be invested in the way of a loan, let alone the policy of this government in shares, without a great deal of thought and study.

The Minister, I know, would not only feel badly, he would be absolutely shattered if he took this responsibility on himself and there was a loss of $2, $3, or $4 million of taxpayers' money. Bring it into the Legislature, let it be debated responsibly. Don't hide it. If it's debated and responsible suggestions are put forward and the government acts on those, and then there is a loss, it would be a very different matter.

Mr. Minister, through you Madam Chairman, consider this amendment, accept it. While we don't approve of your putting taxpayers' money in shares or even in loans when they are this big, it's too much for somebody outside government to take the full responsibility for. Let them bring their recommendations in, let the Hon. Members for Burrard, Vancouver Centre, Oak Bay, for North Okanagan have a look at this. Let us be able to tell the people when we go home, "Yes, this is a sound investment," or "No, we don't think it is."

I support this amendment and I hope the Minister would accept it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just have a couple of points that I want to make here, Madam Chairman, on this amendment which I support. I would like to point out to the Premier and the Attorney General before they completely blow their corks in this Legislature — and I can understand that because there hasn't been an 8-hour day in this Legislature this week, and we've sat over 10 1/2 hours today. I can understand them getting tired and I can certainly understand that the pressures of government are causing them to….

[ Page 2786 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member would you speak to the motion?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm trying to find some justification for their outbreaks.

I'll set the record straight. The capital costs of this alfalfa dehydration plant that you are talking about will be less than $1 million, but quite some debt. So don't stand up and accuse me. It will be less than $1 million.

But the nuts and bolts of this situation is that this bill as it now stands — and the government realizes this — is that the government can invest up to $25 million of the taxpayers' money in any corporation. They know that, and they know the error of their ways. If they want to raise it to $2 million, fine — if you're going to move in.

But I want to tell you that I've had a little business experience in my life and you don't have to move that fast. When you're investing or going to acquire shares in a venture over a million dollars — that is not small business. That is fairly large business, Mr. Attorney General, and you know it. To stand up and say you've got to move so fast…. Any venture that is planned, that is over a million dollars, is going to take some weeks and months of planning, then it could end up as a losing venture, and you know that, Mr. Attorney General.

So you're not justified in standing up here and losing your cool at all. This is a perfectly good amendment and it's not going to hog-tie the operation at all. If you're not satisfied with our amendment, let's put a maximum on it then. We'll say you have to come to the Legislature any time you want to spend a maximum of over $2 million. It will be realistic.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got to get out of that box somehow.

MR. PHILLIPS: What box? I'm in no box. The only box I'm in is this one here.

But you realize this is a poor clause, in this bill. It just gives you too much power, and you know it. I ask you to be reasonable. As I say, if you don't want to accept our amendment, let's rewrite the clause; we'll bring in another amendment to say that for anything over $2 million you must come back to the Legislature.

Why do you consistently want all these powers unto yourself? That is what this Legislature is for. I don't think there are many jurisdictions in the free world that give their cabinets or development corporations the powers that you want them to have. To say that we're not consistent is just ridiculous. I'm amazed at the attitude of both the Premier and the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I'm almost dumbfounded.

Now I suggest, Mr. Attorney General, that you consider this amendment. Consider this amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To help me clarify the reasons given by the Hon. Member — and have been listening very carefully to what he says — could he explain to me when he talks about us authorizing the expenditure of $25 million only with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which concerns him a great deal, how we can alter this so it conforms to the bill he has on the order paper which allows him to spend $50 million with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

In our bill, we are only asking for $25 million by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If we move it up to $50 million, as you've got it in your bill, will that be all right with you?

As a matter of consistency — I've read your bill with a great deal of interest and I find, as a matter of fact, that they are probably drawn by the same lawyer. If you check the section that you are referring to — and as you are amending section 6(3) referring to clause (b) of section 5 — the two sections are tied together — if you read section 6(c) of your own bill it is exactly the same wording as our bill.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Author.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now it is obvious then that if it is exactly the same wording, and we've not fired anyone in the Attorney General's department, the same lawyer who drew the same bill, at your request when you were in the last few days of office, drew this bill for us. The same lawyer used the same words for you.

Now why does he become a bad guy when he draws the words for us, and a good guy for you? Now that's a confusion I'll ask the people in the Peace River country to explain when I go up there. If that is by way of threat, Mr. Member, I'm sorry but it's a matter of the truth.

You say in your bill $50 million by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But we say $25 million by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in ours, and you say that's wrong. Now, I ask you again, if we double the amount from 25 to 50 can we use your words — "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?"

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and becoming directly involved in the operation of that company. There's a

[ Page 2787 ]

big difference. And you stand up there and try to twist the whole thing. Under section 5 …

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we're under section 6.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm discussing something the Premier just said. You let the Premier discuss….

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Premier was discussing section 6(3).

MR. PHILLIPS: We have spent a fair amount of time in this Legislature this evening….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Cool it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I certainly don't want to lose my cool like you did, Mr. Premier. We have discussed in this Legislature this evening — even brought in amendments — the difference between lending money and purchasing shares. And you stand up and say it's the same bill. We're discussing two distinctly different philosophies. You know it and I know it. You can stand there and twist to your heart's content. As a matter of fact, I'll see if I can find you an old car jack so it will help you.

You're having a little bit of difficulty tonight to twist the facts to advise the people. You're caught in your glue and you know it. You know this is bad legislation — you know it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're caught in your alfalfa. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: All I'm asking you to do is to be reasonable. I've been reasonable all evening. I'm trying to point out the error of your ways, I'm trying to offer some constructive suggestions. And all you do is twist the thing around.

If you don't know the difference between buying shares in a company and loaning money to a company, I'm sure the people in the Peace River will. I welcome you up, and I'll sit on any stage…when you come up, just let me know and we'll have a public debate on it. I welcome the opportunity.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Madam Chairman, I have a document here dated February 8 — "Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge" — with a crest. It's from the office of Mayor Gerry Trerise. I'm speaking to section 6(3). Mayor Trerise and one of the aldermen came on February 8 to the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and met with him and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to look at two things — land use and also borrowing money for an industrial park in Maple Ridge. This document is about that.

They didn't come to this Legislature. They came to two cabinet Ministers. Those two people are cautious as all get-out. It's been my experience, in talking to these people for six months now, that they were hoping that it would be possible to borrow up to $1 million. This is all documented here and backed by this province for an industrial park. They have found the cabinet quite cautious, as I have.

I really would like to assure you that this particular venture and many other ventures are very safe. This one involves serviced land eventually for an industrial park. I just can't believe them coming to this Legislature and expecting every application to be approved by this Legislature.

Here is another document by another group of industrialists from Maple Ridge also on an industrial park. Here is where they were simply willing to offer the land if we could have a share issue where we would take shares and they would take shares. Again, they didn't expect to come to this Legislature — they expected to get some kind of action very quickly. We need jobs. There is unemployment in our area which greatly concerns us.

Mayor Trerise's brother, incidentally, is the chairman of the Social Credit party in Maple Ridge, and these people, not of our political persuasion, want action, they want something to happen. I think they would be pretty disappointed with the slow and rather disappointing debate that we've had from this side of the House tonight.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Irrespective of the political attitudes, Madam Chairman, the interpretation of the Attorney General concerning the government's bill and concerning the bill that was introduced by the Hon. Member from the Peace (Mr. Phillips) is correct. The Attorney General is correct, but there is one thing he didn't say and that is this: there are much broader powers under the opposition's bill than, there are under yours. You see, under the opposition's bill the government has the right to acquire shares and stocks, to accept shares and stocks, to hold them, to exchange them, to transfer, them, to assign them without any restriction whatsoever. Yet under your bill, Mr. Attorney General, these powers have got to be given with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I just can't see how these fellows are making the argument they are in this House this evening.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South

[ Page 2788 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: In speaking to the amendment, I must say again that when I say we need lawyers to protect us from lawyers, I mean it. The Member who just spoke knows very well that nowhere in our bill can we buy shares of a company. You lawyers can….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: We can't buy shares or acquire shares and become active in the company and you know it. We expect them as security.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you stake your seat on that? We'll go to an independent lawyer that you choose. Will you stake your seat on it? Any lawyer you pick….

MR. PHILLIPS: All right — we'll pick some lawyers and we'll find out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know what you're talking about!

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know what I'm talking about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you stake your seat on it? Yes or no.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, I'm here to state the facts, not twist the facts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you believe what you're saying?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you shut up for a minute and let me finish!

MS. CHAIRMAN: I would ask both Members to come to order and speak to the amendment and the amendment only.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier's testy — he's tired.

MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder he's tired. He's been tired all week — the poor Premier. We know what we're talking about here. If the Liberals, who are more socialist than the socialists, wish to side in with them in trying to confuse the facts…. They say people don't want to know the facts, well I guess that's it. They don't want to understand the facts so there is nothing I can do to help them. They are beyond help so I am going to support the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Little Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: Madam Chairman, I would like to talk about business responsibility. The reason we put this clause in is we didn't want to make the directors responsible for making loans greater than $1 million. The cabinet took the responsibility and that is where it should be. The people elected us to the Legislature and we delegated the authority to the cabinet — that's called responsibility.

This party is trying to act like businessmen and I have never met such irresponsible businessmen in my life. They don't even know where responsibility starts and stops.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is a difference between dictatorial businessmen….

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: I just want to make a brief point, Madam Chairman. I wish the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) would not constantly get up and expose himself…(Laughter)…for the lack of understanding he has on what we are debating. We are not debating loans which you have indicated, we are discussing the matter of purchasing shares in any company. I wish you would understand that. Don't get up and let people know that you don't really know what you are talking about.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, this debate has been interesting. What has been said on section 6 by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is irrelevant to the discussion of this amendment. We in the opposition parties lost a vote and I am willing to admit it, and I think my colleagues in the Conservative Party are willing to admit it. We lost the vote on purchase of shares and we are facing facts.

The government is going to set up a corporation which is going to be engaged in selling and buying shares. Therefore, this amendment which deals specifically with whether these have to be approved in the Legislature — and this is not just share purchases of over $1 million. If you read this it goes right back to section 5(b) which is "purchase shares in any company." Presumably any amount of shares, no matter how small.

The question is whether that is a realistic

[ Page 2789 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Madam Chairman, what I have to say will be very brief. While we are in this House this evening debating the point as to whether the investment or. the equity position of the provincial government should come back before this Legislative Assembly if they are investing more than $1 million….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: The share position, right. In the acquisition of shares.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is away from the House this evening but in Vancouver at a forestry convention, has indicated to the people at that convention, when questioned about this matter of takeovers in the Province of British Columbia, that the government has in mind takeovers which will involve three to four times the capital and the companies that are presently involved with Colcel and Ocean Falls.

If ever there was a clear indication of the direction this government is moving and the reason that we want some restraint and those decisions to come back to the Legislative Assembly, it was stated in definite terms by your Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to the forest industry in Vancouver this evening.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Madam Chairman, just to put this party on record. The amendment we're now discussing, 6(3), clearly revolves around whether or not approval should be given by the Lieutenant Governor or by the Legislature.

Despite the attempt of the official Leader of the Opposition to twist what I had already said earlier tonight, we opposed and do oppose the buying of shares by this corporation. We've made that plain. But the facts of life are that the government chooses to defeat the amendment. That's the democratic process that goes on, thank goodness.

Now, if that is the way the corporation is to function — by, among other things, buying shares — I just can't see how it could possibly carry out its functions if every time it wanted to buy shares or make loans or carry out what is the integral, inherent function of the corporation, it has to come to this Legislature. We might as well not have a corporation.

That is exactly why I will be voting against the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Just a brief word on this. It has to do with the amendment we're discussing and with the government's desire to take a share position in any corporation in British Columbia.

I don't really believe that the government has any intention whatsoever of acquiring an equity position in any of the smaller companies that are really not of economic significance in the province. I really don't believe that that's their objective. I think that there are sufficient other ways and means by which money can be loaned to them and secured as well.

I think that the acquisition of a share position is dealing basically with the larger corporations in British Columbia. That's one of the reasons why the amendment was introduced. If they really do take an equity position in any company, it will be in one of the larger corporations in British Columbia. We think that if the government does go in that direction, that matter should be discussed by the Legislative Assembly instead of behind the cabinet doors.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that section 6 of Bill No. 102, the twelfth line, to delete "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and add in lieu "the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 30

PAIRED

Section approved.

[ Page 2790 ]

On section 7.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm a little uncertain about section 7(9). "No director shall be appointed as a full-time officer or employee of the corporation or participate in the administration of the corporation." I wonder if the Minister could answer this for me. "Participating in the administration of the corporation" strikes me as being a very wide prohibition. I can understand that they don't want them to be officers of the corporation, which I think is the objective. But in my view, the way this thing is now, they're going to have very much of an arm's-length relationship with the actual corporation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you took out the last words I think you'd probably get around your difficulty, Mr. Minister — unless you've got some other explanation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, if there's difficulty we'll look at it. But it says "participate in the administration." I take that to be managerial, not directorial.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's an arguable point. Would it not be possible simply to take it out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll watch it.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have down here, second-to-last line, the "government of the province." In actual fact shouldn't this be the Crown, Mr Attorney General? I just checked the Interpretation Act and I can't find anything for "government of the province." I can find "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" and a few other things. Is it a legal entity in other words, for the purposes of this Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's just enabling powers to the corporation to borrow. The powers themselves are set out in section 11 where we can make loans. This merely gives them power to accept those loans.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, wouldn't it be better to have a legal entity making the loans rather than a non-legal entity?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll have a lawyer look at it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That would be an excellent idea.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of applying a balance in payments of dividends from revenues. Now I would have thought the better definition would have been "profits." Revenues may well be taken up and any balance may come from something other than profits. It strikes me once again as being curious working. I wonder whether there's any real explanation for it or whether it's just something that crept in by accident and this lawyer who is going to check the bill might change it later?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll check it, but I would have thought that profits were part of revenue. Your revenue is all you get and most of that goes for administration expenses. The balance is profit. But we'll check it over.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can appreciate the Minister's argument. I think however it would be a good plan to check. I appreciate his statement that it will be done.

Sections 19 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On 24(2), Madam Chairman, "In making loans and investments, the corporation shall be guided by merit alone, and loans and investments shall be made without discrimination of any kind." I find these very curious words in this type of section.

[ Page 2791 ]

We have above it two subparagraphs dealing with general investment policy. I don't really understand what you mean by "without discrimination," and "on merit alone." Does that refer to subsection 1(a) and (b)? It just strikes me that you might run into conflict here with some of the deliberately discriminatory provisions that you're putting in in terms of favouring areas which might need special assistance or things of that nature.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's fair decision. The word "discrimination" is used here in the sense that other things being proper within the corporate…they can't take into consideration things that are irrelevant to the matters they are supposed to consider, namely (a) and (b), the business itself, the general welfare of the economy. To say because it's a political thing in a situation would be irrelevant. To invoke such a consideration would be discriminatory. It's using that word in the bad legal sense, which is the proper use of that word.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm a little concerned about this section 25(2). Here you have a section which says that the corporation, "may call the whole amount and interest to be immediately due and payable." I find it a curious business relationship, perhaps because I'm not in this field myself, that the guy who is lending the money can at any time say, "O.K., boys. I want it all back at once."

Now we do have bonds in this province which we've discussed at length and which are a bit of that nature. But in the type of business relationship that I envisage this corporation to be engaged in, I find it curious that the lender would under circumstances such as the ones described under section 25 be in a position to say, "Game's over. I want everything back." I wonder whether the Attorney General would try and satisfy me on this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The loan can only be called in if it's not being used for the purpose for which it was advanced. If we lent money for an alfalfa cubing operation and they used it for a night club in Dawson Creek, we would immediately call into that loan and go into the night club business through some other vehicle.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's clear that we're going to avoid profitable enterprises of a certain nature They'll be discriminated against.

In any event the wording that is a little ahead of that, Mr. Minister — perhaps I should have read it instead of trying to hurry things through — was if the money, "is not being carefully and economically expended." So once again, you have the situation where it's a lender who makes up his mind whether they're doing a good job. Maybe there is an honest difference of opinion between how the loan should be expended.

I find it curious that we are in the situation where the lender can at any time come in and interfere. I guess it's a sound, conservative type of approach. Perhaps it's too much that way. If you're making loans for specific purposes, surely you're going to have to leave to the company to whom you are going to loan the money the decision-making as far as how they go about achieving the objectives.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask permission to sit again.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are just a few sections.

MR. PHILLIPS: As soon as we've finished the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes. We'll finish the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. There are some more contentious points, Madam Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All the contentious sections are behind us.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The motion is not in order, Hon. Member.

Section 25 approved.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about the motion?

MS. CHAIRMAN: I ruled the motion out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why did you rule it out of order?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The motion was to report resolutions. The proper motion would be to report progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member, The Clerks advise me that that motion is out of order.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

[ Page 2792 ]

MR. CHABOT: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 31

PAIRED

AN HON. MEMBER: I ask that the division be recorded in the Journals when the committee rises, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Madam Chairman, standing order No. 3 says that the Speaker, when in the full House…but it should apply in committee as well. It's late at night. You guys can go and have your rest in your caucus room if you want, as you have been doing all evening. But standing order No. 3 says that the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock, and that the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered Also, the House shall adjourn on Friday at one o'clock p.m. and shall stand adjourned until otherwise ordered until the following Monday.

HON. MR. HALL: It's been otherwise ordered.

MR. CHABOT: No, it has not been otherwise ordered. I would like a ruling on that because I would think the government would have to move a motion to continue past the hour of 11 o'clock, because it's beyond 11 o'clock. I would like a ruling on that, Madam Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The committee is sitting and that covers the House, the Speaker. The Chairman can only leave the chair when ordered to do so by the committee. I believe that order has been rejected on the last motion.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It has been the procedure when we are in committee that a similar order applies to 6 o'clock closing at night. The Chairman would always leave the chair and then report to the Speaker at that hour. I suggest that that should be the position of the Chair now. That has been the procedure as the Clerks surely know.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member, but the committee has just rejected a vote that I leave the chair and report to the Speaker. So the matter is out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wonder if we could get on with the business, Madam Chairman, because I would point out that there's no motion on the floor. A point of order has been raised, the point of order has been taken, and the point of order has not been accepted.

I refer again to what the Member read, section 3(2): the House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 p.m. and shall stand adjourned unless otherwise ordered.

We did otherwise order it at one o'clock today, and that's why we are here now, to carry on with that business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 25 pass?

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MRS. JORDAN: Section 29 is a very interesting section — appointments of representatives of the corporation. It says "the corporation may upon acquiring shares, debentures or other securities of a company, appoint such persons as it considers advisable to be the representatives of the corporation at any meeting of the company, or at any meeting of the directors of the company, or of any class — of members or creditors of the company…-

Now, Madam Chairman, we have put on record many times in many forms and many aspects of why this socialist government should not use taxpayers' money to invest in private companies in British Columbia. We suggest that another reason is brought out in this section, and that is that the government when it buys shares takes upon itself the right to appoint people to the board, and as a representative

[ Page 2793 ]

Madam Chairman, we just have to look at the problems in England; we have to look at the problems in dozens and dozens of other countries. When government gets into a company it wields influence beyond what its equity is. It wields a political influence that is not good for the company.

England, when Mr. Heath and the Conservatives took over over there, had a terribly bad time disbanding the megalopolises of companies that the socialist government had formed over there. Why, Madam Chairman? Because the little bureaucracies that had built up in the companies of government appointments and old government politicians were absolutely wedded to their positions and in no way wed to making those companies economic or profitable.

Madam Chairman, British Columbia is a great province with a great people. It doesn't need that type of government interference. We have out in this province probably nearly 750,000 people — a million people — who are capable and who have the initiative to build on their own in British Columbia. What they need, some of them, is a sound economic climate which this government has a responsibility to create. The thrust of the Social Credit administration is not going to last for ever. This government can create it by other means — by low-interest loans, by assistance in finding markets, by advice from technical people where it's needed, but not by buying into these companies and eventually strangling them.

Another reason, Madam Chairman, and it's very evident in this section, is that this government has a bill before this House which gives it the power to say that any company in British Columbia that wants to bid on a government contract must be unionized.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I don't believe you're dealing with the section. Kindly keep to the section under debate.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. But if the government is going to appoint a representative to the company, and it's going to buy shares in a company, then indeed it seems only logical that that person will be able to exercise the company's wish and make sure that that company is unionized, whether management or the workers wish this — regardless of any arrangement there might be between management and company employees….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A point of order, Madam Chairman. The Hon. Member can discuss that question under the bill that she is referring to. But it is not in this section.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, I beg to differ. It says the appointment of representatives to the corporation. It says "the corporation may upon acquiring shares, debentures, or other securities of a company, appoint such persons as it considers advisable…." Right, to represent the corporation. It's put in here for a safeguard, but it also gives that person, if they're not the right type of person, the opportunity to try and wield influence in the company by insisting that its employees be unionized.

This would be discriminatory, Madam Chairman, because there may be a question of Christian conscience in that company, and they would lose their jobs…probably nearly 750,000 people — a million people — who are….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I think that's speculation on your part. I don't believe it's in order to speculate.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your ruling and I wouldn't want to speculate. I mean, just because it happened to a doughnut company in British Columbia, it's not likely to happen when the government owns shares.

But what I would like to do, I would like to reflect on all the arguments of the points that have been put forward by this side of the House, by the Social Credit opposition, on this bill. Potentially, it could be a great bill and a great help to British Columbia but is destroyed because of what it is disguising. That is government control of companies in British Columbia.

I would move an amendment to the bill — section 29, line 1, deleting "upon acquiring shares."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm afraid that I must rule your amendment out of order inasmuch as it does not follow the rest of the section. It renders the section unintelligible. Therefore it is out of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, the whole section is unintelligible.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is — and the Hon. Member did read it — that in section 29 delete in the first line "upon acquiring shares." To delete this, the sentence would then read, "The corporation may, debentures or other securities of a company, appoint such persons as it considers advisable, " et cetera, et cetera.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, in speaking to section 29, "The corporation may, upon acquiring shares, debentures or other securities of a company, appoint such a person as it considers advisable to be the representative of the corporation at any meeting

[ Page 2794 ]

This is an "Open Sesame" to put in political appointments or philosophical appointments and to interfere directly with the management of this company. Mr. Minister, just the whole concept that you are bringing before this House so destroys what could be a good bill. The statements by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Recreation….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are out of order, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: We're into this business of acquiring shares. You know, if the government is going to acquire 50 per cent of the shares in MacMillan-Bloedel, they're going to put in management….

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. HALL: The comments of the Member must be strictly confined to the business of appointing a representative.

MRS. JORDAN: This isn't the amendment. The amendment was ruled out of order.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm saying the debate on section 29. The debate of section 29 should be strictly confined to whether or not this House considers it advisable that the corporation should appoint a person. That's what we're supposed to be debating.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's fine, Mr. Provincial Secretary. We don't think you should be having shares in companies and appointing anyone. However, I will move an amendment to section 29, line 1, which reads, "The corporation may, upon acquiring shares, debentures," et cetera, to read "The corporation may, upon acquiring debentures."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Just a minute. She's on her feet. If you want to go to bed, go to bed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: This is the difference between the Social Crediters and the Liberals. You think you have the right to rule by divinity. We think we have the right to represent people as they feel. I'm sure that the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), whose section we are amending, and the Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) are a classic example of why this government should not be allowed to invest shares in companies. All you're going to get is a government lawyer and a company lawyer hassle, hassle, hassle and the people be damned. The people's money be damned. Nothing matters but the two lawyers working together.

We're concerned about the people and the money and we are concerned that this government not….

MS.CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are trying to determine whether this amendment is in order.

MR. GARDOM: A point of order, Madam Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. GARDOM: I really truly think the Hon. Member should withdraw these inferences.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm not going to go that far, Mr. Provincial Secretary, but let's get on with the debate. A woman scorned — you know the old theory. I hope that's not the case.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, the idea that that Member thinks that a woman he speaks to in an unkind way is scorned is hilarious. Talk about the egos of the lawyers. Talk about the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Liberals. It's not only in Ottawa. It's right here in British Columbia.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must rule the …

MRS. JORDAN: Pardon me, between the Liberals and the NDP. In Ottawa the Liberals can't stay in government without the NDP….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please be seated, Hon. Member. I must rule this amendment out of order because in other sections the committee has already agreed to permit the corporation to acquire shares. Therefore this would negate the other sections of the bill and it is out of order.

Shall section 29 pass?

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder if the lawyer the Attorney General is going to get to look at this bill

[ Page 2795 ]

What happens if they have a vote and it's not unanimous? It's presumably deadlocked, which is obviously not a situation that you would wish to encourage, Mr. Attorney General. Would you just have your lawyer knock that word out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we will. We intend to appoint independent-minded people to these boards. They won't be unanimous.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When you're in the process of knocking out words, in section 31, third line, you have professional employee in a different category from any other employee. Strike out the word "professional" and you'll straighten out that section as well.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 30 pass?

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The only question is who decides this "special beneficial interest?" You've gone to great care to work out a unanimous vote of directors in section 30, yet there's no determination in 31.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think that that has been a grey area in this House in the past. I appreciate the validity of the question.

There is the requirement in a committee where a member must declare a proprietary interest in a matter before a committee. I know that it would be impossible for every Member of the Legislature at every time to know every action of the corporation. But here is a protection to allow the Members at any stage, when they become aware of it, to declare to the development corporation that they either have an interest in the company or that they're interested in the decision.

I would think that it would be pretty public in terms of where the company was going. What we've done in the past as the practice of this House is that the Members come into committee, and when the matter comes to committee the Member stands up and says that this is a matter that he has an interest in and leaves.

I think that what we're trying to accomplish here is that the committee itself, of course, would be very, very cautious to see that no MLA was involved in any area that they were going. It's a responsibility also, on a trustworthy basis, for the MLA to let the corporation know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's my only point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As you know, we've put aside the disclosure bill. That, of course, will have a bearing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Unless you get unanimous clearance from all of the other directors, you would not be eligible under section 31 if there was any doubtful question about it whatsoever.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 31 pass?

Section 31 approved.

Sections 32 to 37 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports several divisions on sections and a division on the motion to adjourn and reports progress and asks leave that they be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be considered as reported at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: On what? You can't have a division on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the report.

MR. SPEAKER: In examining the proposal for a division, I suggest to the Hon. Members that it would probably be advisable to consider it when the report is, returned to the House. Under those circumstances is it agreed that there will be no division?

Bill No. 102 Development Corporation of British Columbia Act reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the

[ Page 2796 ]

House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 10

PAIRED

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:30 p.m.