1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2825 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Energy Act (Bill No. 148). Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2825

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2825

Mr. Fraser — 2825

Mr. Phillips — 2825

Mr. Wallace — 2827

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2827

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2828

Mr. Phillips — 2828

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2828

Mr. Phillips — 2828

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2829

Mr. Gardom — 2829

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2829

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2829

Mr. Phillips — 2829

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2829

Mr. Phillips — 2830

Mr. Gardom — 2830

Mrs. Jordan — 2830

Mr. Morrison — 2830

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2830

Mr. Gardom — 2831

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2831

Mr. Phillips — 2831

Mr. Gardom — 2832

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2832

Mrs. Jordan — 2832

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2832

Mr. Chabot — 2832

Mr. Smith — 2832

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2833

Mr. Gardom — 2833

Mr. Smith — 2833

Division on section 95 — 2833

Mr. Smith — 2834

Mrs. Jordan — 2834

Mr. Phillips — 2834

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2835

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2835

Mr. Gardom — 2835

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2835

Mr. Smith — 2836

Mr. Chabot — 2836

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Mr. Smith — 2837

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Mr. Wallace — 2837

Mr. Smith — 2838

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2838

Mr. Wallace — 2838

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2839

Mr. Wallace — 2839

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2839

Mr. Smith — 2840

Mr. Phillips — 2840

Mr. Schroeder — 2840

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2840

Mr. Wallace — 2841

Mr. Chabot — 2841

Mr. Phillips — 2841

Mr. Morrison — 2841

Division on section 114 — 2842

Mr. Gardom — 2842

Mr. Fraser — 2843

Mr. Chabot — 2843

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2844

Report stage — 2844

Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32). Committee stage.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2844

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2845

Report stage — 2845

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Committee stage.

Mr. Barrett — 2845

Mr. Gardom — 2847

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2845

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2847

Mrs. Jordan — 2846

Mr. Gardom — 2847

Mr. Wallace — 2846

Mr. Chabot — 2847

Mr. Chabot — 2846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2847

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2846

Mr. Phillips — 2848

Mr. Gardom — 2846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2848

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2847

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 120).

Committee, report and third reading — 2848

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill No. 175). Committee stage.

Mr. Curtis — 2848

Mrs. Jordan — 2851

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2849

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2851

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2849

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2852

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2849

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2852

Mr. Curtis — 2849

Mrs. Jordan — 2852

Ms. Brown — 2849


Division on section 19 — 2853

Mr. Gardom — 2850

Mr. Chabot — 2854

Mr. Liden — 2850

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2854

Mrs. Jordan — 2850

Mr. Chabot — 2854

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2851

Report stage — 2854

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (Bill No. 176).

Committee and report stages — 2855

Division on third reading — 2855


SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to committee on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 148, Mr. Speaker.

ENERGY ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No, 148; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 76 and 77 approved.

On section 78.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Sections 78 and 79 seem to be pretty sweeping in terms of revealing information on costs of operation. I wonder whether the Minister will give us some indication of why it is necessary to insist upon such complete information being provided, which might, of course, fall into the hands of a competitor. I wonder whether he might mention why it is necessary to have such complete powers in this area for reporting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): One of the most closely guarded secrets in the western world has been the real cost of a barrel of crude oil. Now, the Alberta commission went to great lengths, and they found that they could determine that cost of a barrel of crude oil. They found that it was a little more than it should be, in terms of the price that was charged to the consumer.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little more, or less?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a normal information section that will enable our B.C. Energy Commission to review the accounts and determine whether or not there are excessive charges that are being passed on to the consumer. It has to be pretty wide, and it is taken from the old Act. If we want to protect the consumer, we must have the facts. Don't you think the oil companies would be glad to supply the facts, so that we can try to determine the true cost of a gallon of gasoline? They'd be glad to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My own personal view is that they might well do so. I am not so sure, though, whether you want to have other people who might be licensee of a station, or something of that nature, providing information on that base. It seems a bit much, but I will accept the Minister's explanation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 78 pass?

Sections 78 and 79 approved.

On section 80.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, this section as applied to service stations is just a bookkeeper's nightmare. It will cost them more to hire accountants than their whole business is worth, and I wish you would take a look at that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it is most unlikely you would apply that to a service station, really.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 80 pass?

Section 80 approved.

On section 81.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a clause that gives pretty wide-sweeping powers, in my humble opinion, to the commission. The clause reads:

"The commission and any person authorized by it, for that purpose, may, at any reasonable time, enter upon or into any oil refinery, storage plant, depot, building, office, or establishment used in connection with the petroleum industry, and may inspect: and examine the premises…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is not necessary to read the section, Hon. Member.

[ Page 2826 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wanted to impress upon the Members here in the Legislature and the public this lovely Saturday afternoon, just how far-reaching this section is. As far as I'm concerned, the commission could use this to obstruct the normal operation of any business, not necessarily just an oil company, any wholesaler, any service station operator, anybody who handles the products of a petroleum company, the offices of a petroleum company. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, it is just more Gestapo tactics that are not really needed at all.

It is not necessary. This is like the labour bill, where the Minister of Labour has the right to go in. This is not necessary at all, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the term "Gestapo." I think that is unbecoming in this House.

MR. FRASER: Oh, no! That's a proper word.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For you guys it is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member to withdraw the use of the term "Gestapo" as applying to tactics or methods of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw the word "Gestapo." It's more dictator powers — nothing is sacred any more. But what amazes me, I can't understand why the commission has the power to designate any other person. And this is where you could find a person, maybe a friend of the party who wants to find out how this business is operating, how Joe Doe is operating his business down here, and maybe he doesn't have a union, and this guy wants to find out. So the committee authorizes him to go into this place of business.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For the purpose of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: For the purposes of the bill. Certainly. What are the purposes of the bill? To control completely every stage of the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's the purpose of the bill. You know it and I know it!

Say an oil company is friendly with the government, maybe even the oil company that the government plans on owning. The fellows who are operating a refinery that the government owns are not doing very well, so the commission says, "Well here, fellow, you come here. I authorize you to go into this successful refinery, find out how they run their books, find out how they refine this gasoline, find it all out, and then come back here to the government refinery."

You are planning on going into the oil company business, Mr. Chairman, and you can use this section of the Act to find out how successful operators run, and you can steal the ideas from them. It's allowed here under the Act.

It's a very dangerous Act, Mr. Premier, very dangerous, and not really required under the terms of this legislation. You know, this commission is going to be the most bureautic… (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Bureaucratic?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a new word, I just turned that out this afternoon. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell it for Hansard?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the side note on this clause says "power of entry and inspection," and it frightens me. It really frightens me, because it's just one more instance of where the government can go into the offices of an individual businessman and snooper-dooper-booper. Another snooper. We passed one last Saturday morning and this is just one more.

When we have finished this Legislature I am going to go back and find out, and make a summary, of how many snoopers this government has authorized to go into the offices and business places of private industry and private business to snoop around. I am going to run a survey, and I bet that even the Premier will be surprised.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We haven't hired a Phil Gaglardi.

MR. PHILLIPS: I bet you even the Premier will be surprised. I think, Mr. Attorney General, that you should explain to the people of British Columbia, this lovely Saturday afternoon, why, and what you intend to do with section 81 — why it has to be in there. Explain how far and how broad you intend to use these powers that we are granting you here this afternoon.

This is getting to be a cliche in this House — granting the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce wide, sweeping powers, granting the Premier wide, sweeping powers. It seems to be the name of the game here. Each piece of legislation has something about the right to go in and

[ Page 2827 ]

snoop around. Explain to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am asking through you to have the Attorney General explain to me, and then after I have heard this explanation, after he has relieved my mind…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you promise to vote for it if I give it a good explanation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You were relieved of your mind a long time ago. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier's even saying he wants to take my mind now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier wants my mind! I hope he knows a good thing when he see it! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not a lost and found department.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should welcome the Cubs who have just entered the House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Do the good deed and get on with the debate. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't know whether they'll learn more here than in the great outdoors, but I hope so.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, and despite the extravaganza of the former speaker, we are also concerned about this section which I am sure the Attorney General or the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce again will tell us is the kind of section present in many other Acts. I'll anticipate his answer.

We feel there is this ever increasing frequency with which legislation comes before this House in which the individual is becoming more and more subjected to this danger. While the intention of the section is good and while obviously, there must be some measure of access if the government is to make this bill function and if the commission is to function… It is rather like the principles we were discussing yesterday regarding the development corporation. While we recognize that government must govern and commissions must function, we certainly would like again to emphasize that there is real danger in this kind of section.

We would urge the Minister as the Minister in charge of this legislation that in setting up the commission every reasonable precaution must be taken to avoid the dangers that individuals will be unreasonably harassed or their business interfered with or that they are subjected to unnecessary intrusion by officials and bureaucrats from this commission.

It has been repeated too many times, I suppose — certainly through this bill and other bills, but I think the people of this province and the people of industrialized countries realize the ever-increasing degree to which government is interfering in various ways, however well-intentioned. Let us not ever forget that sometimes simple, well-intended interference can in fact lead to very undesirable dictatorship and intrusion into the rights of the individual.

Although I am willing to go along with this section, I want to sound the note very clearly and unmistakably that it could easily be misused and abused. I would plead with the Minister that when a commission is set up, that phrase "any person authorized by the commission to enter property for inspection purposes" — that person must be very carefully selected and supervised in his duties.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with that completely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 81 pass?

Section 81 approved.

Sections 82 to 84 inclusive approved.

On section 85.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This a curious section, Mr. Chairman. If a person feels that the price set by the commission is inadequate to meet his operating costs, apparently the commission can come in and take him over completely. He doesn't have the right to close down or to store his product, whatever it might be. If he fails to supply an adequate quantity of any petroleum product, the commission may exercise powers of section 114. And section 114, if we can step ahead because it is referred to in this section, says that the commission may forcibly or otherwise enter upon, seize and take possession of the whole or any part of the business and the real or

[ Page 2828 ]

personal property of any energy utility affected by the order, et cetera.

I wonder whether this is really referring to any person in the petroleum industry or whether it was meant to refer to the major utilities and not to the smaller people. The fact of the matter is, section 114, which I quoted, will be used under section 85 to go after the small people just as much as after the big.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's quite possible because it says: "to sections 114 and the provisions of section 114 apply with the necessary changes…and so far as they are applicable."

So, we have a situation where some small person may feel that with such-and-such a product the commission is simply being unreasonable, and yet he cannot withhold it if he has it on his shelves or he cannot stop selling that product. He has to keep in business in that product. The result would be that if he failed to do that, they'd come in like gangbusters and they may forcibly or otherwise enter upon and seize his personal property among other things. Surely, in the light of the tremendous powers that are granted to this Commission, section 85 simply goes too far.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course under 114 referred to there, they can take possession; that's not seizing, but it's a pretty strong power. No, I just say that it is not take-over. You don't take over ownership of the thing, you step into a public…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he's refusing to operate it, The situation is that the owner is refusing to operate it in such a way that public supplies are being cut off. Now, utility legislation usually provides — and this provides — that in that situation a utility can't go on strike where the public will be badly hurt.

Now it's not going to happen with a small gas station because there are other gas stations in the vicinity, so there would be no reason to think the public supplies were being jeopardized. It could happen, as in the 1940 situation, where all of the refineries of the province went on strike. They did that — the cars were coming to a halt on the streets of the cities of B.C.

So in effect, it's saying to the petroleum industry, as we say to the water utilities, to electric generation and other things upon which the community depends for its life and health, that you can't go on strike. Property can't go on strike against people. But I agree with what the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says — this commission must do its work in public; it must file a report with this Legislature. Aggrieved people will, I hope, write to their MLA if they've got a case. We'll hear about it in this Legislature, I'm sure. And we should hear about it in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 85 pass?

Section 85 approved.

Sections 86 to 89 inclusive approved.

On section 90.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: This section, Mr. Chairman, gives two men of this five-man tsar commission we're setting up the powers of the supreme court. Section 90 — powers of examination, gives this commission the same power the supreme court has to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No I'm not mixed up. The commission has all the powers, rights and privileges vested in the supreme court. You say I'm on the wrong section, Mr. Premier — you better read the legislation. Now this is going, as far as I'm concerned, just a little further than is really necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Allow the Attorney General to explain, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite willing to allow the Attorney General to explain.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the commission — these people — under this section can't make any decisions. This is evidence-gathering. Instead of the commission going up to Taylor, they could send somebody up and have an examination of the person up there, and have them give their evidence. Just as in a supreme court trial, not necessarily every witness comes to the trial — some are examined in Alberta or in another place, and their evidence can be read by the supreme court judge when he makes a decision. It's got nothing to do with the commission's decisions as such. It's evidence-gathering, similar to a trial.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why don't you write that into the section then, instead of saying that they have all the rights, powers, and privileges vested in the supreme court?

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

[ Page 2829 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks. However, the commission, in the very centre of this section 90, has the powers of the supreme court in the enforcement of its orders, as I understand this. Now I quite agree that for taking evidence, for depositions, or for things of that nature there can be a very real need to put in such a provision. But as far as the enforcement of orders goes, and I think particularly of section 114, I really worry whether we haven't gone too far this section. Could it not be restricted to the area of taking of evidence, inspecting documents and perhaps even entering on property? I don't know. But, when you get into enforcement of orders, I think you are going pretty much in the direction that the Hon. Member from Peace River mentioned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: A very good point that has been raised. Because with every respect, Mr. Attorney General, your interpretation is limited, but the section itself is not limited. Your interpretation is limited only to the attendance and examination of witnesses. You made a very credible case with the necessity for that point. Howsoever, as mentioned by the Member for Peace and the Member from Victoria, it goes much beyond that. It includes the rights, powers, and privileges vested in the supreme court concerning the entry on and inspection of property and enforcement of orders. Well, I suppose it means that the commission's going to be able to almost order the sheriff. You can have contempt proceedings; you can have seizure proceedings — all under this. So that's really a little more than the examination of witnesses de bonis non…or something like that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're quite right, that's the second part. It's the same as the Public Utilities Act — section 69 was and still is until this new Act is passed. I haven't heard of any complaints about the old PUC in this respect.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to amend it, Mr. Chairman — that section 90 be amended by striking out "the enforcement of its orders." If it is not necessary to have line 4 of section 90 I would like to move that we delete the words, "the enforcement of its orders."

Amendment negatived.

Section 90 approved.

On section 91.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: In section 91 the commission goes a little further in its complete, autocratic, dictatorial powers. It now has the right to enter, the rights and privileges of the supreme court; it doesn't even have to follow legal precedence. There goes 100 years of common law and legal precedence down the drain by one foul sweep of the Attorney General.

Are you going to give yourself that power too or use it through the commission? I can see that's what you want. A hundred years of legal precedence goes down the drain.

This commission can set its own course of justice, Mr. Attorney General. You are creating a monster here that even you won't be able to control because it might turn on you. Did you ever think of that? It might turn on you and devour its creator — that's what might happen.

When you name this commission it is going to have more power than the Premier, and heaven knows we've given him enough power in this assembly this session. He took it; he's been asking us to give it to him. Now you are giving this commission more power than the Premier has and more than you have yourself, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Hon. Member would give the Attorney General an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we wrote this section with the Member for South Peace in mind. It says, "The commission shall make its decision upon the real merits and justice of the case, and is not bound to follow…" moth-eaten legal precedent. I thought you would like that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hold on, you haven't got the floor.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you have to make this distinction: the commission makes decisions on questions of fact, such as what the price of electrical energy should be in such-and-such a locality. When it makes that kind of a decision it is not bound by legal precedent obviously — or even its own precedent, since it might change its mind.

But when it comes to the appeals and whether it is bound to observe the rules of fairness and natural

[ Page 2830 ]

justice and so forth, it is bound by legal precedent. This has nothing to do with appeal on points of law. If the commission errs by not giving notice to somebody or deciding the thing on the basis of discrimination or taking into account factors that are really not proper factors to be considered under this Act, then legal precedent comes, and the lawyers are happy to appeal decisions from this tribunal — as they have in the past from the Public Utilities Commission.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Attorney General has just told me is that this five-man commission can stumble-bum around the province — fall down, trip over themselves, obstruct and do everything else, but that's O.K. They don't have to follow any path, any pattern; they don't have to do anything. If they trip over themselves and fall into somebody's rose garden, that's tough. The person who owns the rose garden has no comeback.

If they err in their own ways they can justify it because there is no legal precedent. I'm not a lawyer; am I interpreting this right or not? I'll leave it to my friend the lawyer to tell me if I'm wrong. I'm just a layman and I have to try and analyse this legislation on this lovely Saturday afternoon after working nearly 50 hours this week. And besides this, the Premier wants to take my brain away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Well, what the Attorney General has again done by his explanation is to say, "They have the right of appeal according to law." You agree with that, don't you?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: "Yes, of course they do," he says. They have the right of appeal on questions of law. Right? And law is made up of precedent. Right? Yes, but you're not bound to follow legal precedent.

Wait a minute — that's tough to follow, isn't it? (Laughter). The Attorney General has snowed us — saying there is appeal if legal precedent is wrong, but they're not bound to follow legal precedent. Well, this has been a bad day for the Attorney General.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't intend to get into a legal argument, but I just wonder — if it can't be settled here between the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Attorney General, what chance does the general public have? With all these courses of appeal that the Attorney General says they have, how are they going to know if they can appeal or not? The Attorney General says he can, and the Hon. Member, who is a very fine lawyer — shall I give him another ad: an outstanding lawyer and soon to be one of the finest judges in British Columbia — says that he can't appeal, as I understand it.

If Joe Public or Joe's Esso goes to two lawyers and pays them both, what sort of legal advice has he got?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Premier, I agree with you, but I'm not here to keep lawyers in business. That's not what this Legislature is for.

Seriously though, I've sat here and I'm no genius. (Laughter). I appreciate your consideration. And that's the problem, There are a lot of people in British Columbia who aren't geniuses. There are a lot of us working and carrying on our lives and doing our business in what we believe to be a legal and proper fashion, and it's for these people that I am speaking.

What chance have they got to really know where they stand under this Act? What chance do they have when this zoomer from the commission comes roaring and lists everything out and they then get the resulting offer from the government for their business on a competitive basis that was based on their own books. If he wants to appeal it, what chance does he have, Mr. Attorney General? If he does go to one lawyer and gets one opinion and goes to another lawyer to get the other, who's going to pay his costs? The average small business can't possibly afford this sort of financial imposition.

There's just no way, on the basis of the explanation here, that we can support this section at all. As the Attorney General knows when he saw some of the people in the business yesterday — and he was very kind and we appreciate it — they just don't know where they stand. This is another clause that concerns them very, very greatly. We can't support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I wonder if we couldn't solve this a little easier — since we're going to no longer require them to follow legal precedent — by having the Attorney General tell us what his definition of "real merits" is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's say a level of prices or charges to the public — that's the kind of decision the commission makes, you don't follow legal precedent when you're setting a level of, say, electrical rates. Everybody who has taken part in this debate is quite right. The Member is quite right that

[ Page 2831 ]

we have eliminated legal precedent from the questions they decide about the level of prices. I'm right when I say that legal precedent still applies in terms of the fairness of their procedure and that kind of appeal. The Hon. Member from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is quite right because he has straddled both sides of that particular point.

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

MR. GARDOM: If what the Attorney General said is correct, then he can quite easily restrict this section to mean only just that. But the way it stands today, it will grant the commission completely ad hoc powers to act without legal precedent in any area whatsoever. Which means it can — I don't think it will — but it can definitely avoid or evade the laws of natural justice; it can avoid or evade the law of having a fair hearing, and it can make itself a law unto itself.

For all practical purposes, when you have this section in here as it stands, there couldn't be any kind of appeal whatsoever, even on the question of law, because it does not have to follow the law. Maybe if you at least would include something which is not the strongest legal phrase, to the effect that the principles and the laws and the precedents of the laws of natural justice shall apply. Then at least you would have something. But you've really thrown the baby and the bathwater and many hundreds of years of legal precedent right out of the window, the way this thing is phrased.

I gather from the remarks that the Attorney General has made this afternoon that, in fairness, I don't think that the section means what he wants it to mean. But this is the way it can be interpreted in a court of laws.

Mr. Attorney General, you know as well as I do that when you get into a case in a statute such as this you are certainly not going to run into a very liberal interpretation of the statute, when a supreme court judge would take a look at this. You'd be complaining that the commission has not followed the principle of natural justice in permitting people to come, say, to be heard, and they have not followed the legal precedents which would be standing about 6 feet high on this one topic of the law alone. Well, by golly, they don't have to do it. They don't have to follow it. That's all that the commission would have to say.

I think the suggestions raised by the Members for Peace, the Member for Okanagan, and the Member for Victoria are not unreasonable suggestions. We think the power is too strong.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This becomes a rather esoteric legal argument, but the Member mentioned precedents stacked "this high." Where do they come from? A whole bunch of them are precedents of appeals under our old Public Utilities Act — not on the decision but on natural justice. And this section comes right from our existing Public Utilities Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The word "strictly" has been dropped.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then we've improved it a little bit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, don't say it's exactly the same if it isn't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: O.K. Well, not exactly. But it is section 70, basically, of the old Public Utilities Act. There have been appeals and legal precedents have been quoted by lawyers at great expense to their clients under this Section itself.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I said at the outset of the debate, Mr. Chairman, on this Energy Act, that we should have five Acts. I'll say that again. I'll settle for three. We should have an Act for energy resource management; we should have one to regulate energy utilities; we should have another one if you want to regulate the petroleum industry.

Now, what you're doing here, under section 91, applies to the entire Act. You're proving to be a very good lawyer this afternoon, because when you stand in this Legislature all you're referring this section 91 of this Act to is public utilities. You mentioned electricity and the price of natural gas.

You go back and apply section 91 to the regulation of the petroleum industry. This Act gives this commission power to go into anyone in the petroleum business — every service station, every depot — and use section 91 of the Act.

We've got more of this type of legislation this year where you're able to, under the motherhood clause, say that we want to control this. But it gives you further reaching powers than we are able to estimate, and this is the type of legislation you have been bringing in all this session.

You walk in and you say to the commission, "Here's a dollar," and when they go to deposit it in the bank they find the commission has taken their bank account away. That's exactly what you're doing to the people of British Columbia, under the guise of doing away with the gimmickry, as you call it, in the oil and petroleum industry you are taking unto yourself the power under this section, through the commission, to use this power to regulate the entire petroleum industry, which I guess you must consider…

[ Page 2832 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've already debated that.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've debated it! I'm telling you I'm going to have to tell the people of British Columbia what action you've written into this Act. It's shameful, absolutely shameful, Mr. Attorney General!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to have to tell them you're a redneck. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, your off-the-cuff flippant remarks when we're discussing something serious in this Legislature this Saturday afternoon, leads me sometimes to doubt your ability to be the Attorney General of this province.

As I say, you're creating a monster here, under the guise of motherhood, saying you need this power. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I'm going to vote against this, and I'm going to tell the people of British Columbia what power you're giving this commission. It's unheard of in the annals of a democratic society!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I hope that I've got a cure. I may not, but I hope that I've got a cure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope you have, too!

MR. GARDOM: The section reads this way, very quickly, Mr. Chairman. It's only two lines — "The commission shall make its decision upon the real merits and justice of the case, and is not bound to follow legal precedent."

Now, I think we should add these words: "except as to its procedure." I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is going to be billed for that advice. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 91 as amended pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of those who are not lawyers, could we please have an explanation from the Hon. Member for Point Grey as to what this will do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Attorney General care to respond to that question?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It makes it plain that they must abide by the rules of natural justice, which I think they had to anyway, but I am glad to have my friend clarify that. That's fine.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order on this matter. We voted on this amendment before it was on the table, really. I've proposed amendments and they've been ruled out of order because they weren't on the table. Once they reached the table they were ruled out of order. I just want to make sure that that amendment is in order before we vote on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. Shall the amendment to section 91 standing in the name of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

Amendment approved.

Shall section 91 as amended pass?

Section 91 approved.

Sections 92 and 93 approved.

On section 94.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River on section 94.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On section 94, Mr. Chairman. This section has to do with the matter of the commission receiving, accepting or in some manner gathering evidence before them. In the first part of this section it says that the evidence under this Act may be gathered upon affidavit, written statement, report, and so on, "or upon evidence obtained by it in such. other manner as it may decide."

Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney General, that "such other manner as it may decide" could include wire-tapping or the use of secret agents of one type or another — in other words, a complete invasion of the privacy of the individual by the corporation.

I know that the Attorney General, being a lawyer, would be concerned about any Act that was passed in the province that would give those types of powers to the government.

Certainly he spoke himself about the invasion of privacy in this House many times, and it seems to me that the provisions in that section of the Act, as it is written, far exceed, Mr. Chairman, any real require-

[ Page 2833 ]

ment by the government under this Act.

The Attorney General must realize that when you write into an Act a statement that says that you can obtain evidence in any manner that the commissioners may decide, that is a power even beyond the power that the provincial government has. I would suggest to the Attorney General that it's a poor section and that it should be withdrawn or redrafted to prohibit the commissioners from going beyond what is recognized in the courts of law as the proper procedure for gathering evidence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think the Member should appreciate that wire-tapping is something under the Criminal Code. That is a separate matter from this. It is an important point but basically this means that it isn't a strict court. You may remember that even at this session of the Legislature we passed the Evidence Act amendment in respect to doctors' reports being admissible without having to call the doctor into court.

Perhaps there will be a report of the energy commission of the Province of B.C. where they found certain facts and statistics; they could look at that and in their discretion accept that as evidence at a hearing without going back into regrouping those statistics or calling all the witnesses all over again. Boards of this kind act in that kind of informal way. That is all it is intended to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 94 pass?

Section 94 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have leave of the committee to re-open section 91 so the wording may be properly changed for the amendment?

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the wording is exactly the same as before. The same words but they have been inserted in a slightly different place, and my thanks to my learned colleagues at the Clerks' table for that advice. Section 91 will read now, "The commission shall make its decision upon the real merits and justice of the case, and is not except as to its procedure bound to follow legal precedent."

It is exactly the same thing — the words have just been put a little farther into the middle of the sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 91 as amended pass?

Section 91 approved.

On section 95.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have an additional section to 94 dealing with the matter of evidence and facts obtained, or any question of fact before the commission. This section of the Act places the commission above the courts. It says in the final section of the Act that any matter of fact within the jurisdiction is binding and conclusive upon all persons and all courts. In other words, whatever the commission decides is above and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of law of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Attorney General, with due respect, it's not really a price level that you are talking about. We are talking about a power contained within this Act which refers to every form of energy in the Province of British Columbia. Section 95 places the commission in establishing a question of fact above and beyond the courts of this land. We do not accept that premise, Mr. Chairman, and we think it would be very remiss of the government if they accepted that premise.

Section 95 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Hall Macdonald Barrett
Dailly Strachan Nimsick
Nunweiler Nicolson Brown
Radford Sanford D'Arcy
Cummings Levi Lorimer
Calder Skelly Lea
Young Lockstead Rolston
Anderson, G.H. Barnes Steves
Kelly Webster Liden

NAYS — 12

Richter Chabot Jordan
Smith Fraser Phillips
Morrison Schroeder Gardom
Anderson, D.A. Wallace Curtis

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.
Williams, L.A.
King
McGeer
Hartley
Brousson
Cocke
Bennett
McClelland
Lewis

[ Page 2834 ]

Section 96 approved.

On section 97.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we run into the same type of procedure and the same type of legal language that is outlined throughout this entire Act. In resolving a question of fact, even though that may have resulted in a court action, the commission does not have to accept the court decision on a question of fact. As a matter of fact, the commission puts itself in a position of resolving the same question even after a supreme court decision may have come down on that matter.

They completely disregard, in this respect, the court procedures of the province and of this land. We can't support a provision within an Act that places the commission above the courts, even to the extent of deciding a question again which has already been decided by the court and going a different direction if they desire to do so.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman — but I speak to him as the Attorney General — as I understand it you are virtually giving this commission the powers and the right to formulate its own laws and act outside the law of Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, yes you are, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's exactly the same as the PUC.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest, with due respect to the Hon. Member, that the Public Utilities Act was here for a long time, had amendments and certainly may well have been due for more amendments. That is no excuse for a fresh, vigorous, democratic government to excuse poor legislation such as this — swamp legislation, as it has been called.

It's embalming a whole new industry and where the public utilities has been brought into the debate today, Mr. Chairman, has been in relation to services which have a captive audience. This is an invasion of a whole industry, not just the big companies, but layer after layer after layer, or arm after arm after arm of the industry.

The petroleum itself is the trunk and it's a whole tree of people with small businesses which you are invading through this Act. You're giving the commission the powers to invade this tree like a bunch of termites, and to starve this tree and not be answerable to the laws of the land.

I used the term "termites" — I probably should have used the term "codling moths." When you have an apple tree growing, you feed it and there's the trunk and the fruit comes, but if that's invaded by pests or codling moths or termites or whatever else, then you destroy the whole crop. This is what you're doing. You bring in a spray or deterrent to bring the tree back into production.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to this section?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman — I'll be glad to.

You're allowing this tree of a whole industry within a series of industries to be put in a position where it can be destroyed and not questioned, because you're giving this commission the power to make its own laws and act outside the laws of the land. We can't possibly support that. You should change your mind; you should withdraw this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

I would ask all Members to keep their remarks strictly relevant to the section under consideration. We've already debated the principle of the bill and I would ask them to confine their remarks to this particular section,

MR. PHILLIPS: This section 97, the Attorney General just said, is in the present Public Utilities Act, but what the Attorney General didn't tell the people of British Columbia is that the old Public Utilities Act didn't have jurisdiction over every service station in the province, over every bulk operator in this province, over every tank truck operator in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about this section of the bill and its wide-ranging ramifications on the petroleum industry!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's still not clear to the Chairman that you are speaking to this particular section. Will the Hon. Member please…

MR. PHILLIPS: I am speaking to this section as it applies to a new area of jurisdiction. What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney General is saying

[ Page 2835 ]

that this clause was in the old Public Utilities Act. So it was, Mr. Chairman, so it was. But the old Public Utilities Act didn't have section 4 in it, that's what I'm saying. Section 4 pertains to individual enterprises in this province — individual enterprises in this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Same terms nothing! Get out of that! You can go into a barge operator who is barging oil up the Liard River and send your commission in having all these wide powers. I don't want the Attorney General to tell the people of this province that this is good legislation because it was there before…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of this section, I believe, is the powers of the commission to determine questions of fact, pending litigation, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to that point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, and make it perfectly clear that we can't have this old motherhood rising up in a cloud of sunshine, when down here the dark clouds are just the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 97 pass?

Sections 97 to 99 inclusive approved.

On section 100.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The power here is to determine what will happen in the case of any complaint. We are giving the entire power to determine whether or not a complaint will be heard and handled to the very people against whom the complaint will, in all likelihood, be made. So we are in the situation where the people who may have a genuine complaint may be thwarted by the fact that the people to whom they have to go and request to have their complaint heard are the very people who gave them a hard time in the first instance. Now, that doesn't appear to me to be a very fair or equitable way of approaching the problem of complaints.

I realize that there can be frivolous complaints — we politicians probably see as many frivolous complaints in our correspondence as any other group in society. I realize that there can be great difficulty in areas such as this, but I wonder whether the Attorney General would like to indicate what guidelines he might be giving to the commission to make sure that if there are genuine complaints they get a fair hearing and that it's not a question of the same people determining whether the complaint will be heard as the people complained of.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes complaints of this kind, even before the Labour Relations Board, are determined by correspondence, for example. If it then comes to a point where a verbal argument and lawyers are desirable, fine, but it may be a small service complaint. They should have the power to determine that and make a quick decision sometimes without a formal hearing — that's all it does.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If it's a big one they'll hold a hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 100 pass?

Sections 100 to 102 inclusive approved.

On section 103.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Just one item in dealing with this public hearing — one can only be held, I should say, when it is in the opinion of the commission. I think, Mr. Attorney General, that it would not be an unreasonable suggestion to say that a public hearing can be held when directed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or by the Legislative Assembly, and have those words added to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member proposing an amendment?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, and I'm just wondering whether he would like to accept that. It reads at the moment: "A public hearing shall be held whenever, in the opinion of the commission, a public hearing is in the public interest." I'd add these words: "and/or when a public hearing is directed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or directed by the Legislative Assembly."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you write the amendment out, and bring it to the table?

MR. GARDOM: It's written out, Mr. Clerk.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Possibly the amendment, if it's accepted, can be subject to the Law Clerk's dressing it up in proper legal language.

[ Page 2836 ]

MR. GARDOM: That is satisfactory, because it's nice to have a lawyer working on these things as they come into this Act. I mean during working hours because, outside of working lawyers, lawyers are not better than anybody else. I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Well, certainly I think the Hon. Member who preceded me in this debate has pointed out one of the problems that is involved in section 103 — that is, as it stands the public hearing will be held only in the opinion of the commission.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is limited by section 102(l) — "except in case of urgency…"

MR. SMITH: Yes, but "…as to which the commission is the sole judge, the commission shall not make any order involving any outlay…" and so on. This is a public hearing that we're talking about in section 103 and at the present time it's only at the discretion of the commission itself.

I would support the amendment because this broadens it at least to the point where we have some other authority. Perhaps, just going beyond that, there should be some way of spelling out how the petroleum industry or any other energy-using or -creating body in the province could get to a public hearing if the commission denied them that privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to section 103 pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 103 as amended pass?

Section 103 as amended approved.

Sections 104 to 107 inclusive approved.

On section 108.

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

MR. CHABOT: Section 108 — more powers for the commission.

MR. PHILLIPS: Powers by the hour.

MR. CHABOT: "Where the special circumstances of any case so require, the commission may make an interim ex parte order authorizing, requiring, or forbidding anything to be done that the commission on application, notice, or hearing, is empowered to authorize, require, or forbid."

So it is the power of an exparte order, ex parte injunction. I'm surprised to see this in this legislation because not too many days ago the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) here indicated to certain segments of the labour movement that he didn't believe in injunctions. It was only a matter of time until he closely examined it and the possibility was that they would remove what they considered to be court interference in labour disputes.

You also talked about injunctions when you talked to the people of British Columbia. You didn't believe there was a need for injunctions in your new deal for people last August.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just in the labour field.

MR. CHABOT: Well, this might be in the labour field. This could involve the labour field. Are you telling me that it will never involve the labour field?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Hon. Member would give the Attorney General an opportunity to respond.

MR. CHABOT: Perhaps, and perhaps not. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's your privilege, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened to Members stand on this floor, especially the Member for Alberni, in years gone by, fight against these injunctions — the power of injunction, the power of interference. He used to violently attack these court injunctions when it was related to labour disputes. We don't know whether it's going to be related to labour disputes here. It doesn't say so. It's just blanket power given to this board. In your new deal for people you said that these kinds of powers and these kinds of interferences were repugnant to your way of thinking, and yet you enshrine just the reversal here in your section 108.

So you can't have it both ways, Mr. Attorney General; you must be consistent. Your philosophy has been against injunctions and now you're backing off by printing section 108 that gives the power of an ex parte order on the part of this awesome commission.

And I want to say that not only have you said that you are opposed to injunctions, but…

[ Page 2837 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In labour disputes. It's nothing to do with this.

MR. CHABOT: This could involve a labour dispute — you'd better believe it could. Yes, it certainly could. It certainly could get involved.

I think the B.C. Federation of Labour has taken a strong position this type of ex parte order. I'm pleading this afternoon — and it's not very often I do that — on behalf of Mr. Haynes in consideration for his way of thinking relative to these kinds of injunctions. Give him consideration. Remove this section from the Energy Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This has nothing to do with any labour situation, because it is only for the purposes of the commission and they have no labour functions whatsoever. It's an emergency stopgap power that's given for a short period of time — it says "interim" — to protect a community's life or health in an emergency.

Now, let's take an example. An electrical energy company refuses to serve or diverts its power away from the town of Golden. You have a fruit processing plant in Golden, and if they don't have the power and the freezing, a perishable crop will be destroyed. Then the commission makes an interim order — "Until we have a chance to hear on this matter, don't cut off the supply of power to that processing plant or to those homes." It's purely interim — then the hearing follows.

I assure you it will only be confined to that kind of emergency situation.

MR. CHABOT: But it could involve a labour dispute. It certainly could. Injunctions are sought through the courts in labour disputes — and they're issued by the courts — to prevent substantial or irreparable injury to property or to safeguard public order. You're insinuating that it would never be used under these circumstances. It can be used under these circumstances and it could be circumstances that are related to a labour-management dispute.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's restricted to something that the commission is empowered to authorize, require or do. I can assure you it will have nothing to do with labour-management.

MR. CHABOT: Well, if a labour-management dispute was doing irreparable injury or damage to property or public order, the commission would have the right to interfere. It would have the right under section 108 to interfere. Absolutely.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 108 pass?

Section 108 approved.

Sections 109 and 110 approved.

On section 111.

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

MR. SMITH: Here again we have a provision within this Act that the commission can deputize — as a matter of fact, the provision says that the people who enforce our laws are ex officio officers of the commission, and can be requested and shall be required by the section of this Act, to enforce any regulation or law that the commission desires, without going through any further procedure than to call upon any sheriff or police officer who is appointed by the province.

It seems to me that this is a type of provision that should not be included in the Act. I think that the commission should have to show just cause as to why they would require the services of a peace officer within the scope of the power that is actually in their jurisdiction, before the peace officer or sheriff or whoever was required to act upon their behalf.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will only be after the commission considers it very carefully. They have to consider it very carefully and they don't want to have their own enforcement staff of a lot of people, so they call upon the public officers as they've done in the past.

MR. SMITH: Then it is not the intent of the Act to set up a separate force that would be attached to the commission for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I would hope not. Because it would be very seldom that you would have to call on a sheriff. Most companies and utilities obey the directions of the old PUC and they will this one.

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

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Regardless of the Attorney General's feeling that this would rarely be used, it is very specifically stated in this section that sheriffs and peace officers are ex officio officers of the commission. The one word that I think is very significant is the word "obey." They are just told by the commission — there isn't any question of doubt whatever in this section.

I've tried not to get up on every section because there is so much running through this whole Act. The word "power" repetitively is putting the individual very much at the peril of extreme power at the hands

[ Page 2838 ]

of a commission. I simply must get up on this section because I think it is one of the most dangerous sections.

While the Attorney General has assured us, nevertheless, there is that one word, if none other, that these peace officers and sheriffs will "obey" the instructions of the commission. It isn't the instructions of a court that the sheriff is subjected to here, or has to obey without any choice — it is, in fact, the instructions of an appointed commission. I must express our serious concern at this kind of power being in the hands of the commission and being able to tell law officers and making them obey the instructions of the commission.

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

MR. SMITH: One further comment on the matter, Madam Chairman, and that is that in this Act you have the greatest powers without checks and balances of any Act that has ever come before this Legislature. Then you include in that the provision that the law officers of the province must "obey" the orders of the commission without, even to the extent that they themselves may feel that whatever is being asked of them is beyond their powers. Yet you say to them, "You enforce the orders of the commission because we so dictate, or we suggest, or we request." This is certainly far beyond anything in the way of justice that we should have to face in the Province of British Columbia or any other part of Canada. To provide that section in an Act goes far beyond anything that I am sure the Attorney General intended it to.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to prolong the debate, Madam Chairman, but a person can be taken out of a beer parlour and forced to fight fires. It's an emergency. A private citizen.

Now, here we are not doing that, but we do say that in emergencies… As I say, the life and health of a community could be involved and some interruption of services, for one reason or another. I don't think it is likely to happen. But that's the only occasion when this kind of standby authority is needed.

Then you may say you need the police officers to help out, to prevent irreparable damage to property and health. It can happen, but it's not likely to happen. There has been no abuse under the old Act; I wouldn't expect there would be under this. I certainly don't intend to allow it to happen.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 111 pass?

Section 111 approved.

Sections 112 and 113 approved.

On section 114.

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

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Madam Chairman, I must say that section 114 strikes fear into our hearts. Although the Minister said a few minutes ago under section 111 that he did not anticipate setting up any separate police force — and I accept his word on that unquestionably. Nevertheless, the wording in the section says," …employ such persons as it considers necessary for the enforcement of any order…"

Now, I would be interested to hear which persons the Minister has in mind, and who would enforce the order. We have already got the sheriffs and peace officers in 111. If we are not setting up some separate disciplinary body under 114, who is he referring to when he says "…employ such persons,…for the enforcement of the order…"?

Further in that same paragraph there is this whole question again of forcible entry of a property if necessary. There is no mention of any search warrant or any reasonable measure of protection, apparently, under section 114(1). This commission has the unlimited power to do as it sees fit. It may feel that it is justified in entering to seize and take possession of the business.

There again we are back on this very basic point that the citizen, the individual, or the people in dealing with the energy utility really seem to have very little protection against pretty extensive power given to the commission — first of all, to employ people as enforcement agents, and secondly, to move in "forcibly if necessary." I presume they could break the doors down, or take some forceful measure to get onto the property without a search warrant.

Really, it would seem to me from the Minister's own confidence in the way in which the people would function, and the history of utilities so far, that this power will be rarely needed, according to the Minister — so why have it in the Act at all? Maybe he can tell us how rarely this power has been used under the old Act. Has it ever been used?

I think the wisdom of good legislation is to strike this balance between providing what is necessary, but protecting at all times the individual and society. I would submit, Madam Chairman, that maybe what should have been done with this section, and perhaps with many sections of this Act, is that if, in the course of experience and time, events prove that there is not enough power in the Act, surely the Minister can come back to this Legislature, asking amendments to this kind of section to provide the power which is lacking.

I think it is an unfortunate action of the govern-

[ Page 2839 ]

ment in this Act, that it has gone in the other direction, and is providing in section 114, and in all the other sections we mentioned, more power than is reasonable or appears to be needed, except on rare occasions. I would wonder if the Minister wouldn't like to comment on the possibility that if we have to run any risks, the risks should be run in the direction of the bill not having enough power, and being capable of amendment that gives him the power.

I think certainly in 114 we have gone too far in the other direction in creating authority of enforcement and forcible entry, and lack of search warrant, et cetera. If time and events show that this degree of power is needed, then I think the Minister would have no trouble proving to this Legislature the need for an amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To begin with, we are talking only about energy utilities, not the little gas station. Secondly, I think that this power, in effect, means that in an emergency where light, heat or power was cut off to a community or a section of a community, it may be that the commission would have to, in an interim way, run that service, or see that it was run, and employ an acting manager.

Now it hasn't happened, I think, in the Province of British Columbia — we'll leave aside that gasoline strike. It hasn't happened, but I think it is the existence of these powers that perhaps means that it doesn't happen. I would hate to think that we would have to convene the Legislature because — I hate to name a utility — some utility refused to supply an essential service to a community. So the power is there, and it has been there traditionally.

MR. WALLACE: Might I just ask a supplementary, question? With respect to the Minister, several times this afternoon, in answering questions, he has repeatedly told us that it is this rare emergency occasion. I just have to ask the equally simple question. Why is it not in the section? Several times, Madam Chairman, the Minister has given a very reasonable answer, saying that it is this rare occasion, and usually the possibility of danger to life and health of people because of some emergency interruption of service.

I'm sure many individuals in the community when they read of this kind of debate, where we are just hammering back and forth this same theme all afternoon, will wonder, if it is just for these rare emergency situations, whether such a qualifying phrase could not be included in the section. It would give us all a sense of reassurance.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point, Madam Chairman, I have checked with the previous Act — the Public Utilities Act — and these sections do occur. We have had no word from the Attorney General as to how often those powers were used. It might be helpful if you would let us know, because we could then get some idea of whether or not they have been used in emergency situations only, or whether they have been used more frequently.

It's as well to point out that while this section, 114, does talk of energy utilities, it is referred to in other sections of the Act. I think specifically of 85, which I mentioned earlier, which brings into effect this particular section as applicable, say, to something which is not a power utility.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're right, but 85 has been passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 85 may have been passed, but there is no need to sort of say, "Well, you may be right, but I told you that time," which I think is essentially what you are doing.

The fact is that it has a wider application than the actual words of this section say. It has a wider application because at least one other section says, "114 applies," and if there are any adjustments needed to make it apply the commission can go ahead and do that.

The Attorney General talked of emergency situations where light, heat and power might be cut off. There is no question that that can happen. B.C. Hydro, among others, might be at fault, and might be attacked by the commission under these sections.

Still, the sections which give an "open Sesame" to seize, to enter, forcibly or otherwise, to take over the operation are unacceptable to us. Certainly they are unacceptable unless they can be explained in terms of the need with reference to the previous sections of the previous Act.

If the Attorney General comes up with reasonable explanations in terms of past experience, perhaps we'll be able to accept this section and the subsequent sections, which are similar. But without that type of explanation, I'm sorry, but the word "emergency" which is constantly cropping up, simply doesn't impress us. Why not have search warrants? Why not use the legal system? After all, the Attorney General is the very man — if I can exaggerate very slightly — who owns the legal system. He is the guy who is on top of the whole thing, or should be, at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's either on top or on bottom.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at the moment he is

[ Page 2840 ]

on top of it. He could, I'm quite sure, arrange for search warrants to be handed out, provided he can persuade one of his many judges that his point of view is reasonable and persuade him to sign a search warrant. Then, perhaps, the scruples of my party and the other people on this side of the House would be a little more satisfied. The fact of the matter is that now it is unlimited — unfettered. There is no need to declare an emergency.

If you put that in, I wouldn't mind. If you said "the commission must declare an emergency in such and such an area, and after such a declaration they can move in," that I might accept as well. But there are none of these provisions regarding emergencies, there is no provision to go near the courts, and we think, under the circumstances, in dealing with property and civil rights as you are, you just should amend this section substantially and bring it back to this House in a different form.

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

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, the points that were made by the two previous speakers, I think, are well taken, in that there's no reference in this section to emergency situations.

The other thing that disturbs me, Madam Chairman, is the fact that all during this debate the Attorney General has told the opposition in this House that he considers the petroleum industry a utility, an energy utility. He has said that repeatedly in remarks during this debate.

Now if that's the case he's not in any way exempting the petroleum industry from the provisions of section 114. As a matter of fact, I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that it is the full intention of the Attorney General to make sure that the petroleum industry is included and will be covered under the provisions of section 114 of this Act.

If it is as he said, to be considered on the same basis as other sources of energy of other utilities in the province then it will, in fact, become an energy utility under the sections of this Act and will be treated in the same manner as any other energy source or utility in the province. For that reason, if for no other, we certainly will not support this section.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairman, I just want to endorse the words of some of the previous speakers and to point out to the Hon. Attorney General that if this section of this Act were aimed at the labour union movement there would be a complete province-wide strike tomorrow. Because they just wouldn't stand for it! Yet the Premier wants to force section 114 — at one phase of our life in British Columbia all the energies in a complete petroleum Act.

The Attorney General, Madam Chairman, says that he has great concern for the well-being of all the people in British Columbia. I expect, Madam Chairman, that he will show this great concern by bringing in similar legislation in the case where the good of the general public is at stake when there is a strike in a particular industry.

Now, if he is going to bring it forth, if he believes in this type of legislation, I suggest that the Attorney General take these powers upon himself over all phases, because you might as well.

I certainly am against this type of police-state power that we are giving this commission — this two-man commission. I am going to vote against it, Madam Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Break the door down.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): In section 114(3) there is a phrase that gives even further powers to the commission — powers that would allow the commission to take action that would cause irreparable damage.

It says, "For the period of time that the commission continues to manage…" Whenever they come in to take over a utility, they can take over the management of that utility. But while they are there they can do anything they wish, even with the employees of that commission, "including the employment and dismissal of officers, managers, or employees of the energy utility and the employment of others."

In other words, if they find a utility that is perhaps not following the wishes of the commission, they can walk into that utility, stay there just long enough to rid that utility of its managerial staff, hire other staff, and then let the utility go back to its normal operation. This is a power that I find obnoxious, and I would like to have some guarantee from the Minister that says this is not the intent of this bill, as it appears to be in the cold, hard writing over here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may be necessary to step in and run a utility with all those powers, but I certainly wouldn't think it would supplant, say, a labour union agreement that would give some employees security of tenure. No, I wouldn't think

[ Page 2841 ]

so. This is stopgap, essential legislation that was brought in by the Social Credit government. Oh, what a government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. No, I take that back! Strike it off the record. If the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) is threatening to resume his place in the debate, I want to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will not point out to the House that this is section 95 of the old Public Utilities Act, for fear of projecting that particular Member back into the debate.

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

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, I would just like to ask a supplementary question. The Minister has answered that this kind of power is necessary to deal with what could be a very serious situation. Is it not a fact that the government has, for example, in another action which it took in relation to land which had very abrupt and severe ramifications to individuals…? Could not the same action be taken by government even if this power did not exist specifically within this Act?

If there were energy utility on strike or in some way not functioning, is the Minister trying to tell the House that, without this power specifically in this section of this Act the government does not indeed have the power to control such emergency situations?

Here again, I'm trying to make the point, Madam Chairman, that we are going far too far with the legislation, when really the power for the rare control of emergency situations already exists in the hands of government. I would like the Minister to answer that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't think of any other power that would protect society in those circumstances, without convening the Legislature. Maybe somebody can, but I can't.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you. The Attorney General consistently refers back to the powers of the PUC, using it as a justification for the inclusion of these awesome powers which he has enshrined in section 114 of this Act.

I am wondering whether his interpretation of section 114 is similar to the interpretation the Premier put on the Land Commission Act when he used the parallel of the Municipal Act, in which he quoted only one subsection of a section and failed to quote the other sub-sections. There is a strong possibility that you are probably misinterpreting this section the same way as the Premier was misinterpreting and misleading the powers…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier was misinterpreting the powers that were contained in the Land Commission Act when he went out on that hotline and told the people of British Columbia that there is no difference in the Land Commission Act, that there is no more power than was contained in the Municipal Act

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly confine your remarks to the section under debate, section 114 of this bill?

MR. CHABOT: I am relating it to this Act, just the way the Attorney General is relating it to the Public Utility Act. He is saying that it has no more powers here in section 114 than are contained in the PUC Act. That is what the Premier said on the Land Commission Act. But he didn't quote the full section to the people of British Columbia.

I have my doubts as to whether you are interpreting the Public Utilities Act correctly.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say, Madam Chairman, that section 114, which is a section evidently taken out of the Public Utilities Act — I will have to say again that the Public Utilities Act did not apply to the petroleum industry and all the individual operators in this province. Here under section 114, Madam Chairman, the commission has the power to go in and do all this and then turn around and charge the utility for it, if they want to.

It is bad, bad legislation. I'm going to vote against it.

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

MR. MORRISON: I would just like to ask a question at this point about these pieces of information which were given to us throughout section 114 and other parts of this Act. At some future date, when we need to refer to these, can we also use that information as factual, which instructed…? (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: You can read it out of

[ Page 2842 ]

Hansard.

MR. MORRISON: Can we read it out of Hansard when we get into problems?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know if it is factual or not; it depends from what section of the House it emanated.

MR. MORRISON: I will accept that all right, Madam Chairman, provided that we can accept those things that the Minister has given us, then.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 114 pass?

Section 114 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall Macdonald Barrett
Dailly Strachan Nimsick
Stupich Nunweiler Nicolson
Brown Radford Sanford
D'Arcy Cummings Dent
Levi Lorimer Calder
Skelly Lea Lockstead
Gorst Rolston Anderson, G.H.
Barnes Steves Kelly
Webster Liden

NAYS — 13

Richter Bennett Chabot
Jordan Smith Fraser
Phillips Morrison Schroeder
Gardom Anderson, D.A. Curtis
Wallace




PAIRED

Williams, R.A.
Williams, L.A.
King
McGeer
Hartley
Brousson
Bennett
Lewis

On section 115.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Madam Chairman, I'd like to address myself for a few moments to section 115. You know, the granting of excessive powers, Madam Chairman, is one of the greatest dangers that face the democratic society. This has really been the bulk of the whole of today's debate. We find here another open-ended excessive power, with just a faint hope — we'll hear from the Attorney General — that the club may not have to be used. "We want to have the big club but we may not hit you with it." I don't think that's enough.

It's a ghastly section. I think it's a democratic fright. It's the type of horror you'd best find in the waxworks across the street in the horror department. It's a complete abrogation of the principle of the recognition of individual property rights. Under this section, if an order is made by the commission and an energy utility fails to comply with it — any order, however small it may be — or if the energy commission itself makes up its own mind that there isn't any effectual means of compelling the energy utility to comply with the order, then lo and behold comes the power eventually, via the Attorney General and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to dissolve the energy utility, without compensation, without redress, without appeal, without the right to courts — legally laser beam it right out of existence; make the existent non-existent.

That would be just like putting the NDP cloak right over an energy utility like this and saying the magic words:

"Abracadabra — The toe of gnat, the wing of bat; Double, double, toil and trouble, I turn the energy utility into a bubble." (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't bubble.

MR. GARDOM: It may be humorous but it's fact. What this is doing is violating some very basic principles — ethic, moral, legal, constitutional and very good political principles. There are two of these, the first being the right to sue the Crown — the right to let an individual, an energy utility, a corporation, a man, a woman, a child, a partnership, a feme sole, a feme covert or a feme uncovert, whatever it may be — the right to have his or her day in court. Secondly, it precludes the right to a similar sort of an individual for any kind of fair compensation for public expropriation.

The debate today has done one very remarkable thing. Mirabile dictu. At long last, if nothing else, it has brought the Social Credit Party out of the morass that they've been sitting in for 20 years. They've suddenly discovered that in the Province of British Columbia you don't have the right to sue the Crown and you don't have the right for fair compensation. I'm delighted to hear that they've come out with such strong words today and such valid principles.

But why were you so quiet over the past 20 years, when these very things were asked in this very Legislature and argued and argued over and over and over again and advanced over and over and over again?

Mr. Attorney General, if we had the very two safeguards that I'm talking about now, the right to sue the Crown in the Province of B.C. — and surely to

[ Page 2843 ]

goodness the concept that the Crown can do no wrong should have perished with the divine right of kings. If we had that right and, secondly, instead of this government — as did the old — continuing to treat the great commissions that we've had on expropriation laws in B.C. — the Clyne commission and the one that came about as a result of the law reform commission last year — if you would stop treating these as vintage wine and pull out the cork. Let's have a little bit of effective legal and ethical principle come into the province. This debate today would have been cut down to about 25 minutes if those two rights were here. They were not here.

I cannot support this section for the reasons that I've advanced. I think it's a disgraceful section.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 115 pass?

Section 115 approved.

Section 116 approved.

On section 117.

MR. GARDOM: Just one quick word…

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

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My apologies for not waiting until you addressed me.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your apologies are accepted.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Here we have the right to the court of appeal, which we have talked about ad nauseam today upon any question of law or excessive jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact.

The Attorney General was the first to admit that it was a pretty strong Act. This is the strongest Act of its kind in Canada that has been introduced today. He says there might be a few problems in it but really nothing to worry about, because "We're going to take it easy."

Yet under the statute the only appeals he grants are ones on questions of law or excessive jurisdiction. But there's no consistency to the Hon. Attorney General's position. Because when we advanced and introduced into the House earlier in the session this rather innocuous little bill dealing with credit reporting which, if memory serves, was Bill 48 — under that particular bill if a debt collection agent had difficulty with his licence, he had the right to go to the court on a question of fact and have a brand new trial.

Yet here where we have, as the Member from Peace illustrated time after time after time today, something that affects all sides of the petroleum industry and every energy in the province, save and except natural lightning as I said yesterday, it comes to a full stop on questions of appeal on errors of fact.

Now, there can well be the grossest errors in determination of fact. We all know that. That's why we have juries. That's how the jury system came into being — to judge and weigh the facts. Yet there's an appeal from the finding of a common jury, of a special jury, of an assize jury, of a county court jury, whatever it may be, to the court of appeal. Look at the historical precedent for that — going back 400 to 500 years at least.

Yet here it's precluded. I think it's a wrong thing. I'm not going to say any more about it because we canvassed the point earlier today. But I feel very strongly that this section is far from as inclusive as it should be. It should permit appeals on questions of fact as well.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 117 pass?

Section 117 approved.

Sections 118 to 125 inclusive approved.

On section 126.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Section 126 gives the commissars appointed by the energy commission the right to have municipally-elected officials fined up to an amount of $2,000. I can't understand why appointed people can be put in this position of power over local elected people, who are no doubt doing their job protecting the public property of a municipality, in the case of lanes or streets. But if they defy these people, they can be fined $2,000 for it. I would ask that this section be withdrawn.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. Again that same section we're discussing here is enshrined in the Public Utilities Act, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. It's there in the Public Utilities Act and it shouldn't be there. It should be withdrawn.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 126 pass?

Section 126 approved.

Sections 127 to 151 inclusive approved with amendment.

On section 152.

[ Page 2844 ]

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

MR. FRASER: Explain it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. Do you really want it explained? Well… (Laughter). I gave this explanation in second reading. Somebody was so badly out of order that they asked me this particular question on second reading. I was so badly out of order that I replied to it. I'm sure that the answer is still fresh in the minds of the committee. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the Minister's name pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 152 approved with amendment.

Sections 153 to 194 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports that several divisions took place and asks leave that they be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 148, Energy Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

CATTLE INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 32; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I would like to move an amendment to section 4, lines 2 and 3 by deleting the words "purchaser or class of purchasers who purchase" and substituting the words "cattle seller or class of cattle sellers who sell."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's no connection with that. No, it's simply a matter of who is paying the levy. It's clarifying that. It is the seller who is actually paying the levy, collected by the purchaser, but it's not deducted from the purchaser's returns, if you like. It's the seller who has to pay the levy. It's just a question who pays. It doesn't affect the definition of the fact that this is a tax and thus unconstitutional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture to section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved with amendments.

On section 5.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 5 which deletes the present section 5 and substitutes the following: "Every cattle seller shall pay at the time of the cattle sale the levy created by subsection 1 of section 4 and shall submit the levy to the fund at such times and in such manner as is prescribed by the Minister."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The same question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The same answer. This hasn't changed the nature of the levy at all. It's still essentially a tax for the purposes of the definition.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6, deleting the word "member" as was correctly pointed out by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I believe — or no, perhaps it was the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

"Member" is not really appropriate in this bill. It should read "cattle seller."

Amendment approved.

[ Page 2845 ]

Sections 6 approved.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I move an amendment, deleting the words — and this is the Scott Wallace amendment — "or to imprison." No? Again, in any case we did listen, Mr. Chairman.

Deleting the words "or to imprison for a term not exceeding 90 days…" So there's no reference at all to imprisonment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Speaking to the amendment, we just wonder whether the Attorney General or yourself have had the opportunity of investigating the correctness or otherwise of throwing a guy in jail for less than 90 days in jail, perhaps under an ultra vires bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 32, Cattle Industry Development Act reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

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

House in committee on Bill No. 36; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 36, An Act to Amend the Farmers' Land-Clearing Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON.

MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 42; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All agreements are off. All agreements were off last night. Your Whip walked out.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

On section 1.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper on p.14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to simply discuss the procedural problems we're facing here. Is it the intention of the government to proceed with this bill throughout until completion this evening until 11 o'clock, for example? We have agreed today within our party to sit today, and the Conservatives also agreed with the government last night when it was requested.

But this is a contentious bill, and I really don't feel that we should start it on the sixth day of a six-day week at this time of night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, then, I suggest the Whips get together and come to some kind of agreement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it was our understanding that we would not be picking up Bill 42 at 4:30 on a Saturday afternoon. It is a contentious bill, perhaps the most contentious of the session. I just think that in the interests of good will and co-operation around the House it would be advisable to at least start this up next week.

[ Page 2846 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can only suggest that this matter be dealt with by the Whips.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can we assume now that the Whips are consulting on it? Is that the position?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know either. I'll check with our Whip. But the problem that we face is that we were quite willing to agree with the government last night that we sit on Saturday because of the difficulty they are facing with their legislation…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This is not a matter for consideration by this committee. Shall the amendments to section 1…?

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order…the Premier has said that the Whips agreed, and it's quite evident according to our own Whip that the government has broken that agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Will the Hon. Member be seated?

I would point out that the matter that may be dealt with by the Whips is of no concern to this committee. The committee is to deal with the bill as instructed.

MR. WALLACE: I wish to point out that the government Whip has taken no initiative to call a meeting today. I think that should be on the record.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no business of the Whips of concern to this committee and we will proceed with the business of the House. I would ask that we confine our discussion to the amendments that have been proposed by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture to section 1.

MR. CHABOT: I'll never take your word again. There's been double-crossing and trickery. Double-crossing!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper to section 1 on p. 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments pass?

Amendments approved.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper, p.15.

Amendments approved.

MR. GARDOM: On the amendment that is on the order paper to section 2, Mr. Chairman, in the name of my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is not possible, upon consulting authorities, for one Member to introduce amendments on behalf of another private Member, according to our rules. Unless they are put in your own name.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll propose the amendment myself, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is in order, yes. With leave.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is to the effect of deleting the existing subsection 1 and establishing the following, and I would like to read what the addition is.

The addition is this, as l(a): "The commission is directly responsible to the Legislative Assembly and each member of the commission shall hold office during good behaviour for a term of three years, and may be reappointed for a further term of three years but may be removed at any time for cause."

In moving the amendment, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we have in this suggestion here something that is far more logical and far more practical than that which has been proposed by the Hon….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor. I would ask that the other Members not interrupt him.

MR. GARDOM: You'll notice under the section prepared by the government, Mr. Chairman to you, Mr. Minister, that it is to hold office during pleasure. It's a completely open-ended situation. The purpose of the amendment is to say that they will only hold office during good behaviour and for a term of three years. They can be re-appointed.

We think this is much more logical. Under your definition of the term of office, there's absolutely nothing. It's totally open-ended. We have suggested a definite period. We think that your term of office and

[ Page 2847 ]

your mode of holding office is too broad. I respectfully move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The government is not prepared to accept that amendment. I say this very advisedly at this time.

When this bill was introduced in second reading I made it quite clear then that we would consider amendments in this session and that there would also likely be amendments at the next session of the Legislature, whenever that might be. That's why I say that in this particular respect we will not consider an amendment at this time.

I'll tell you why. Your suggestion that it be for three years sounds very logical. On the other hand, we feel that the work of this commission is going to change very markedly, not within three years but even within one year. In the first period of perhaps even a few months, the commission is going to have a very particular job. I'm not suggesting that there will be a wholesale changeover in commission members within a matter of months. But I am suggesting that at least during the early days of this commission — when I say "days" that could mean months or a year — the work of the commission may be quite different from its work in the second and third years.

So for this opening period at least the government would prefer to leave it as is in the original wording, leaving open the possibility that by the time of the next session we might then consider changing it so that it would be for a specific term.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister has made very good sense with his explanation, although I would like to hear from him concerning his proposal. He really talked about the initial stages. But in principle are you in favour of restricting their term of office? It's open-ended. A gentleman could be a commissioner to 114 years of age, God willing. If he was effective, that might be a good thing. But we feel very strongly that there should be a limitation upon the period of time in which they hold this very demanding and commanding office in the Province of British Columbia, which is absolutely saddled with responsibility.

Among other things, it's a very good thing to till the soil occasionally. People should not become too crustacean in their ways. There could well be the need for the turnover. That's why we've suggested it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Point Grey pass?

Amendment negatived.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I understand that it was not a deal but an arrangement. I wasn't aware of it. Because of that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's obvious there's some confusion between the three party Whips.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not in the slightest confused. There was absolutely no arrangement that came to my desk from either the government Whip, the Conservative Whip, or the Social Credit Whip. I understood that there would be some decision made last night. There was no decision made to my knowledge.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Apparently a conversation took place. On the strength of that conversation, I'm asking that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHABOT: Last night when I asked the Premier across the floor what the order of business would be the following day, he suggested that I contact the Whip. That was at 11:30 last night. I did go and see the Whip immediately. He told me that we would finish the Attorney General and that we would move to Municipal Affairs, Mines and Agriculture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the information I have now. Apparently it wasn't shared with all the Whips, nor was I aware of it. My Whip wouldn't report to me until he had contacted the others. Because of that confusion, I want to say that nobody is at fault. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I think it's quite understandable that there can be some confusion. But in light of this, if the opposition wish to re-open the two votes that have passed when we do go on to the bill — there's some thought that we may — would the Premier be willing…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we'll just leave them where they are. I move the committee rise right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it a point of order?

[ Page 2848 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I think that Hansard will reveal where the Premier advised us two days ago that the order of business would be Municipal Affairs, Mines and Agriculture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) explained, there was a conversation last night. It was agreed upon at the end of the conversation. It was not related to the two other Whips, nor was it related to me. Because of that and what I've heard now, I think there's been confusion. I don't think anybody is to blame or anything else. It was just a breakdown in communication. Because of that, I'm suggesting that the committee rise. I think that that's the best way to settle the matter at this point.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 120, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 120; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 175, An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 175, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No 175; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1to 15 inclusive approved with amendments.

On section 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): With respect to section 16, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have discussed this. If I may, I would point out that the execution of what is intended in section 16, while commendable in attempting to tell as many people as possible about a proposed rezoning or land use contract, the execution is going to be extremely difficult indeed, if not impossible.

I would draw the committee's attention to the fourth and fifth lines: "Notice of a hearing on a rezoning or land use contract must be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all real property," et cetera. To identify the occupiers of property on a fairly regular basis, if the rezoning activity is quite frequent, is going to be very difficult and will create considerable problems for the clerk's office in a municipality or for the secretary's office in a regional district.

If the Minister wishes, he will admit that this is a problem and probably will require an amendment very quickly.

I know that some municipalities have followed the letter of the law previously and have simply run a very small classified advertisement in some newspaper. A number of people who would have liked to appear at a public hearing, who would have liked to comment on a proposed rezoning or land use contract have found after the fact that the rezoning hearing had been held. And that's most unfortunate.

I suggest it would have been much better in section 16 if the province had required municipalities to run larger advertisements of a certain minimum size in the display section of the newspaper and to have used other means to notify people in a given neighbourhood or a given part of the municipality or indeed over all of the municipality.

But, Mr. Chairman, picture if you will the carrying out of the requirement of notices mailed not just to the owners but to the occupiers. As observation has been made in the corridor on this particular section and in a couple of municipalities, there are illegal suites in any municipality and there are occupiers of real property who are not known to the municipality.

I suggest that section 16 is going to be very, very awkward indeed if the intent is to be carried out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 2849 ]

of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As mentioned by the Hon. Member, we have discussed this question and we realize there may be some difficulties in the mechanics involved. However, I would point out that the reason for the term "occupiers" is so that people who are residing in apartments will also have a say in the construction on the property adjoining the property on which they live. We feel that tenants should have a say as well as owners of a property.

The second thing is that in subsection (b) of section 16 it does state that the council proposing the bylaw state in the bylaw the distance in which notice should be given. Whether the notice is to be given will be controlled by the local council or the local district.

We will keep a close look on this section and if difficulties do in fact occur, we shall have to take another look at it at the next sitting.

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

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Could the Minister please inform us, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he's considered simply making the normal provision of reasonable notice. If you put that in, obviously it would have to be in the area where the people are affected. Obviously if it can be done better by advertisement than by mail, it could be done that way. It would provide a certain flexibility.

Reading this in a legalistic way, it almost indicates that every single person must receive a letter before they can proceed with their hearing. I have quickly written out an amendment which might take care of this, which would delete all words following "bylaw" in line 4, and then substitute after that word "bylaw": "provide reasonable notice of hearing on a rezoning or land use contract." This would, in my mind, get around the dilemma that the Hon. Member for Saanich has made very clear to this committee. If it's in order, I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this be put forward.

I have had a very brief moment to discuss it with the Hon. Member for Saanich and he agrees this type of thing, in his experience as the mayor of a municipality in this area, might be better in that it allows some flexibility which this section, as presently worded does not.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to accept that amendment. I think it will make it worse than it is at the present time. "Reasonable notice" is what we have now and that's why this amendment is there to change that. I know in many places it's done reasonably, but in other areas it isn't done reasonably. That is the reason we have this wording in. I suggest that if there is any big problem we can certainly take another look at it in another session, but I'm not prepared to amend it at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Through you Mr. Chairman, if they're not following the present law, what indication do you have that they will follow any amendment you're putting in?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, the question of "reasonable" is in the beholder's eyes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the inflexibility being shown on this matter is really disturbing. The government has goofed on this particular section. In the several months or perhaps the year between the end of this session when this becomes law and the next session of the Legislature, any number of legitimate, desirable, rezoning applications, rezoning processes, as desirable as they may be to all of the community, can be upset by someone saying after the fact, "I'm an occupier and I didn't get my letter."

Now let's have a little reasonableness on this point. You've goofed, through you Mr. Chairman; you've made a mistake. Let's fix it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): I live in a riding which has a lot of tenants in it. Although I am very sympathetic to the municipal council and the difficulties they may have putting this into effect, the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people living in houses which are going to be torn down and apartments built on that spot, or are going to be rezoned for one reason or another, who are not notified for the simple reason that they do not buy newspapers.

There are a lot of people who read the Press only on the weekends and there are a lot of people who read the notices and have no knowledge or realization that it is affecting the particular house or the particular block they are living in. The only way we can safeguard this and be sure that everyone knows what is happening to the particular place they are living in is to ensure that this thing goes out to them. I would suggest that if we're amending it, we say it should be by registered mail, not just by mail. Surely we shouldn't soften this one bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 2850 ]

MR. GARDOM: One word on the practicality of the matter as indicated by the Member from Saanich and also from Victoria. Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you should give thought to the mailing constituting notice. At least restrict it to mailing constituting notice as opposed to the receipt of mailing. You can get into a situation where 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 or 15 people for any reason may not receive it, or allege they did not receive it, and upset your rezoning.

You've got a tiger by the tail on the text the way it reads now. I think the Member for Saanich made a very valid point and I subscribe to the sentiments mentioned by the lady Member for Burrard, but I do feel that the section the way it reads…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, as long as you are satisfied with that; still, it's a little ambiguous to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, in section 17, it seems to me that it must be an oversight that street lighting has been left out. It should have been after boulevards, I think.

In many subdivisions where there is a development, the developers put in street lighting in any case without it having to be in the bylaw. But sometimes it doesn't happen and the moment the developer is gone the people who have moved into the homes are looking for street lighting and the taxpayers are faced with that expense.

It seems to me that in most cases it happens without it being in the bylaw, but it ought to be there in the Act so that the municipal councils can put it in their bylaws.

I think it's an oversight and I hope the Minister will just add it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It can be included under section 17.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we continue on and come back to section 17 when the amendment is prepared?

On section 18.

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

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Chairman, there is something on section 18 as well. In the section where it says: "standards prescribed in the by-law prior to the approval of the subdivision," it should be the subdivision plan, I believe. Not approval of the subdivision as such, but approval of the subdivision plan.

And then also in (a) where it says, "the owner of the land deposits with the municipality a bond;" I think that should be security deposit." A bond is sometimes interpreted as something quite different and sometimes the municipalities get into a great deal of trouble in deciding what really is a bond.

I wonder if the Minister would consider that?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I think that the plan, the subdivision plan or the subdivision — I don't know if there is any difference, really. The question of a bond we'll consider for the next session anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 18 pass?

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

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

MRS. JORDAN: section 19, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister if he could clarify this for us. My understanding is that it is, of course, for the preservation of heritage buildings within municipalities or regional districts, and the procedure used is simply in effect zoning these sites with no provision for compensation. Is this correct?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That is correct.

MRS. JORDAN: Am I right then, Mr. Chairman, in understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in bringing in this bill that has needed a lot of amendments already, has brought in a section which would allow municipalities to look upon perhaps a person's home or farm or adjoining land as being of historical value to the community and could literally confiscate that land by zoning?

Well, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has brought up the church, and that's a good point. What he's empowering the City of Vancouver to do in this Act is to confiscate Christ Church Cathedral.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's no confiscation provisions in it.

[ Page 2851 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, when you've put your question would you be seated so that the Hon. Minister can respond?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll be seated so the Minister can respond. But I want to ask him more questions.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I think what you're saying is correct, except there are no confiscation procedures in here. There is a designation procedure where a council can designate heritage buildings.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says that it's just designation not confiscation; there are no confiscatory powers in the bill. It may not be spelled out, Mr. Minister, but I suggest to you that there are many instances in British Columbia where people are living in homes, as an example, which might very well and do have historic value to that community.

If the city council could designate an historic site on the advice of their heritage foundation that they've set up, while they wouldn't take it over, the owners are left in a position where their property which well might be worth $1,000, $5,000, $25,000, $50,000, or $100,000 if it was to be marketed, would be left on their hands and they might want to sell and move away. They might die, as happens. The widow might be left with this property on her hands…

HON. MR. LORIMER: It's the destruction of the building that's being protected, not the question of sale or anything else.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll sit down if the Minister would clarify that, because I think this is an issue, Mr. Chairman, which must be clarified and debated in this House.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This doesn't prevent any sales. All it does is preserve old buildings that are considered to be of heritage value or historic value. and that doesn't in any way prevent sale of property. It has nothing to do with property itself, but buildings, and it doesn't prevent the sale of buildings.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says it doesn't prevent sale, and that's a very nice thought. But would he please tell me if I own a house and the adjacent land on an historic site — which might be in an agricultural area and could be of 10 acres and would not be allowed to be subdivided under another Act that may come up for debate in this House — and I can sell it, but it's declared an historic site and it can't be torn down and it can't be used for anything and the land can't be subdivided, who would buy it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there may be the odd old house lying around, but there are not many MacMillans in this province and there certainly aren't going to be many in the future. Nobody is going to have any money if this government keeps going.

But, Mr. Minister, I think your statement is really subject to question, if not in fact ludicrous. You are bringing…

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's your opinion.

MRS. JORDAN: You are bringing legislation into this House which is going to give a municipal council such as the City of Kelowna — where you arbitrarily brought in thousands and thousands of acres of land, some of which does contain historic sites, I'm sure. People live in those homes, on that land. It can't be subdivided. You leave a widow or a marriage-partner or children in a position that through zoning they are going to be left with nothing but a building with which nothing can be done. And there's no provision for compensation.

If the Act, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, allowed the heritage advisory committee to make recommendations to council, if it allowed the heritage advisory committee to raise funds for fair compensation for what it and council are going to designate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: But that is only to defray the expenses of the heritage advisory committee itself. There's no clarification as to whether or not that advisory committee or the municipal council will be compelled, as is only just, to make fair compensation for such designation.

I wonder if the Minister would accept an amendment for this bill which would require this. And if he would, would the House give us time to do it? There is no way we can support what in effect is confiscation of personal property and homes by zoning.

Mr. Chairman, would the Minister be prepared to indicate whether he…

HON. MR. LORIMER: There is no confiscation here, as I told you before. It is not a question of confiscation by zoning at all. It is a question of preserving historic buildings for the benefit of the people in the cities or in the areas involved. There is no problem of selling or anything else. Presumably the city would purchase it as the funds became available for preservation as it goes on in the following subsections — for preserving and altering and so on.

[ Page 2852 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in second reading, I heartily approve of this section. I can think of all sorts of buildings which should certainly be preserved. I am sure the Member for North Okanagan was thinking of the Bennett family home. Now, there's an historic building to be preserved. (Laughter). Perhaps Pop Bennett's fruit store is another historic building. We're not too sure; it's come up so often in the political life of the province in the last few weeks. Perhaps that famous popcorn stand the Minister of Mines refers to would qualify. I'm not sure about that.

But more seriously, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan did touch upon a point which I think is important and that is the question of funding. To do this effectively it will require zoning and restrictions which will affect the value of property. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he does envisage some time in the future, not necessarily right away, of having some provincial fund available in this way.

The work that has been done up to now has been really splendid. There's Barkerville and Fort Steele. Other things of this nature which are basically restorative have been superb. I'm delighted to go to Barkerville from time to time to see my great-grandfather's store with the sign up above it. It's part of our family history and I appreciate what the previous government did in this respect. But it does take some money.

At the moment there doesn't seem to be any money available except such money as a municipal council would be willing to put forward. I don't think municipal councils at this stage — the Minister should know this as well as anybody — are particularly flush with money for extra things. So I think if this is to be really useful, we're going to have to set up some sort of provincial fund to assist. I wonder whether he would comment on what money is available now and what he expects will be in the future.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As I mentioned, the intention is that it eventually would be paid for. But the problem arises where a building or an area has been purchased for redevelopment and the bulldozers get onto the site. It's a little late at that time to arrange for financing and so on to prevent it. This gives the council the power to state that this particular area is a site for heritage purposes or for historical reasons and to prevent the destruction of that structure. And that gives the committee time to find funds to look after the purchase of the property.

Now there are funds available both through the cities and through the provincial government for some particular cases such as you've already mentioned. This gives time for the decision as to what should be done with these buildings and to prevent the destruction of them before something has been arranged.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Second Member for Victoria's concern about the funding provision, and it is well-taken. But as to the other fact that the Minister has the unmitigated nerve to stand in here and say, "We presume the council would make provision," just isn't good enough for the people of British Columbia. What is potentially an excellent section of this Act and very good for British Columbia is completely destroyed by his lack of provision for fair compensation.

Now, when we were discussing a previous Act in here called the Energy Act, the whole Act was predicated on the necessity for the Minister to have the powers to protect the people. Now under this Act, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act, this Minister relies on presumption. He says that there are some funds available at the provincial treasury, and we're aware of this. But nowhere does he tie the council's action to the provision of these funds.

He gives the councils the power to act independently on this zoning, or to act in conjunction with their heritage advisory committee on this zoning, because of the basis of time, but he in no way ties it legally to the provision for fair compensation. It might be 10 years between the time the heritage site is zoned as a heritage site and the time that the widow or family or whoever it is got any form of money from that council — before the council could even raise the money. The council may do the zoning on the premise that the provincial government would accept it for funding and then find it didn't. They've locked people into a zoning situation and they have no funds to give equity, nor is there any law requiring them to.

This means that through zoning, without any formal request or demand for compensation, you then put a person in the position where they would have to go to all the problems and the cost of a court decision. This could take years, Mr. Chairman, and the cost may well be prohibitive. A lot of people own sites or live in homes which are justifiably consideration for heritage declaration. But, often these people themselves don't have much money. They may have lived there for years and years.

You go into the north part of this country and you find little log cabins that people are still living in. They don't have a lot of money; they may well be on rehabilitation finances or on a pension. How could they possibly appeal this decision through the courts? Then, how have we any way of knowing what the

[ Page 2853 ]

court's decision would be as far as compensation is concerned?

This Act allows the council to zone it, to actually render it useless from the point of view of any return to the person. So the court may well find that the council is acting within the framework of the law, as the Minister spelled it out.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman. I urge you to withdraw this section; accept an amendment; do whatever you wish, but don't give a council the power to act independently of any other level of government to confiscate a person's property by zoning without compensation. You might be locking in 100 acres of land because of other bills before this House.

Everybody has a great deal of confidence in their municipal councils, but let's not be naive about it all. One of the most contentious bills in the House is about the right for people to have equity and fair compensation…

HON. MR. LORIMER: That isn't in section 19, I don't think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, you say you "don't think, " you say you "presume." This is ill-drafted legislation. It's ill-thought-out legislation. It gives a municipal council, either intentionally or not intentionally…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're not debating the principle of the bill. We're debating section 19.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm debating section 19, Mr. Chairman, and you'd better read it because you will have to answer to your…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask you to confine your remarks to section 19.

MRS. JORDAN: The Provincial Secretary is listening and I think he agrees with me. As I say, whether it's intentional or not is not the point. The point is that there is power in this Act for a municipal council to confiscate private property in the name of historical sites without any provision for fair compensation. We cannot support this Act. We urge the government to reconsider and to bring in an amendment to alter the Act in any way they see possible to guarantee that people in this province are not going to be subject to this type of — well, it could almost be described as communist tactics. And it should be.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, where do you live? You seem to live in a vacuum of municipal nothingness. The Minister should be prepared to protect the rights of the individuals of this province. We're going to vote against it and it's a shame because it's a good section of the Act. We'd like to support it, but this. opposition party is on record time and time again in this House that we will not condone confiscation of personal property from individuals by zoning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 19 pass?

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Hall Macdonald Barrett
Dailly Nimsick Stupich
Nunweiler Nicolson Brown
Radford Sanford D'Arcy
Cummings Levi Lorimer
King Calder Skelly
Lea Young Lockstead
Gorst Rolston Anderson, G.H.
Barnes Steves Kelly
Webster Liden Wallace
Curtis Gardom Anderson, D.A.

NAYS — 8

Richter Chabot Jordan
Smith Fraser Phillips
Morrison Schroeder

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.
Williams, L.A.
Strachan
McGeer
Hartley
Brousson
Cocke
Bennett
Lewis
McClelland

MR. CHAIRMAN: We now return to section 17 and the amendments. Shall the amendment pass?

Section 17 approved with amendment.

Sections 20 to 30 inclusive approved with amendments.

On section 31.

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

[ Page 2854 ]

MR. CHABOT: With regard to section 31, I would like some information from the Minister of Municipal Affairs because in subsection (b)(1a) it says: "Should any dispute arise as to what are the current wages in the municipality, the question shall be referred to the Minister of Labour, for determination, and his decision is final and binding upon the contractor."

Now, from time to time there are disputes on wages in union contracts. Union workers, for instance, those who have a contract with a one year duration, I think about every year they have a little dispute about wages; those who have a two-year contract have a little discussion and dispute every two years about wages. Does that mean that no longer will there be a collective agreement signed between an employer and the employees' representative? Does it mean that if there is a dispute on wages, the matter is referred to the Minister of Labour and he arbitrarily decides what the wages will be? Is this going to be applied to a contractor who has employed non-union workers at a stipulated rate of pay? Does it mean if an individual worker decides that his classification should vary — it should be the same type of job content as was described in the original instance — that he can apply to the Minister of Labour and he can arbitrarily have the thing set up — adjusted by the Minister of Labour?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHABOT: Interference in the sanctity of contracts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This of course doesn't deal with the contracts where there is a union involved in which the wages are guaranteed by agreement. This applies where there is a contract between a municipality and a non-union operation in which unfair wages may be paid. The previous Act under which you controlled the situation in your term as Minister of Labour was the Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act. When changes took place in this session, that Act was repealed. So this merely brings into the Municipal Act the same section, with a slightly different wording, that was in the Act with which you are very, very familiar.

MR. CHABOT: What would you really consider a dispute — one worker objecting to the wage structure?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section…

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment, don't rush me. The Provincial Secretary wants to be facetious — he is anxious to go on his Easter holiday. He has his bookings for the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please return to section 31.

MR. CHABOT: I would like to know the Minister's interpretation of a dispute.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In my opinion, that would be up to the Minister of Labour to determine whether it was a valid complaint — the same, I am sure, as you had to do on a number of occasions last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 31 pass?

Section 31 approved.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports a division on section 19 and asks leave that it be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 175, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 176, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 176; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 2855 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 176, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall Macdonald Barrett
Dailly Nimsick Stupich
Nunweiler Nicolson Brown
Radford Sanford D'Arcy
Cummings Dent Levi
Lorimer Calder Skelly
Lea Young Lockstead
Gorst Rolston Anderson, G.H.
Barnes Steves Kelly
Webster Liden

NAYS — 12

Richter Chabot Jordan
Smith Fraser Phillips
Morrison Schroeder Gardom
Anderson, D.A. Wallace Curtis

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.
Williams, L.A.
Strachan
McGeer
Hartley
Bennett
Lewis
McClelland

HON. MR. BARRETT: The order of business is to complete the Minister of Agriculture's bills, and there are second readings.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we'll do the second readings first or agriculture, but both will be done on Monday so it will be second readings, agriculture, labour, mines — now that may be altered because of a request from the Liberals — then lands and forests, and highways — Department of Highways is the end.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right — committee stage of the bills under those Ministers. We may go to second readings first on Monday, and committee and agriculture.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.