[ Page 2911 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Iron Bounty Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 19). Committee, report and third reading — 2911

Copper Bounty Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 20). Committee, report and third reading — 2911

An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965 (Bill No. 31). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 2911

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2912

Mr. Smith — 2913

Mr. McGeer — 2913

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2914

Mr. McGeer — 2914

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2915

Mr. Smith — 2915

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2916

Report stage — 2917

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Committee stage.

Mr. Phillips — 2917

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2918

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2918

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2918

Report stage — 2919

Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 47). Committee, report and third reading — 2919

Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill No. 64). Committee stage.

Mr. Gardom — 2919

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2920

Mr. McClelland — 2921

Mr. Schroeder — 2921

Mr. Morrison — 2921

Mr. Gardom — 2922

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2922

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2923

Mr. Williams — 2923

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. Williams — 2923

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2923

Mr. McClelland — 2923

Mr. Gardom — 2924

Mr. Morrison — 2924

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2925

Mr. Morrison — 2925

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2925

Mr. Gardom — 2925

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2926

Mr. Gardom — 2926

Mr. Morrison — 2927

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2927

Mr. McGeer — 2927

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2927

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2927

Mr. Gardom — 2928

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2928

Mr. Morrison — 2928

Mr. Gardom — 2929

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2929

Mr. Gardom — 2930

Mr. Lauk — 2930

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2930

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2931

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2931

Mr. McGeer — 2932

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2932

Report stage — 2932

An Act to Amend the Placer-Mining Act (Bill No. 169). Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2932

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2932

Report and third reading — 2932

An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968. Committee, report and third reading — 2933

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act (Bill No. 152). Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2933

Hon. Mr. King — 2933

Mr. Chabot — 2933

Hon. Mr. King — 2933

Report and third reading — 2934

Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill No. 153). Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 2934

Hon. Mr. King — 2934

Mr. Chabot — 2934

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2935

Hon. Mr. King — 2936

Mr. McGeer — 2936

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2937

Mr. Wallace — 2937

Mr. Williams — 2939

Mr. Brousson — 2939

Hon. Mr. King — 2940

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2940

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2942

Mr. Chabot — 2943

Division on motion to report progress — 2944

Mr. McGeer — 2944

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2945

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 37).

Amendment recommitted — 2945

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery tonight five political science students from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. They are here under the direction of their instructor, Mr. Matthew E. Smith, and I would like the Members to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 19, Mr. Speaker.

IRON BOUNTY ACT REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 19; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): 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. 19, Iron Bounty Act Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines. Do you wish to make a motion?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's completed!

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry.

Interjections by some Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've had a hard day. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

COPPER BOUNTY ACT
REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 20; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 20, Copper Bounty Act Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
ACT, 1965

House in committee on Bill No. 31; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On the amendment to section 1.

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

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): We'll wait and deal with the section as amended.

Amendment to section 1 approved.

On section 1 as amended.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an opportunity to talk once again about the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2912 ]

MR. SMITH: …in regard to section 1…(Laughter)…and say a few words about the effect that I feel section 1 will have on the petroleum industry in this province.

The net result of the implementation of this section will be to increase the royalty on petroleum products, particularly on crude oil. The increase, as compared to the previous rate of royalty, will go from a low of 5 per cent and a high of 16.5 per cent to a low of 10 per cent and a high of 40 per cent. But the average increase will be better than double what it was before in the petroleum industry. I hear some of the backbenchers applauding that.

Because they are uninformed about the exploration for petroleum and petroleum resources in the province, I suppose they feel they have reason to applaud, because this increase in royalty will put British Columbia in the position of having the highest royalty on crude oil production in all of Canada. They are also applauding that.

I suppose if we were in a position that we didn't have to consider, or take any recognition of the fact that we still want the petroleum industry to explore for crude oil in the Province of British Columbia, you could applaud that. You could take the position that we are going to gouge the industry for every dollar that we can get and it will have no effect, except that it will increase the amount of revenue into the provincial coffers.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this: by increasing the royalty on petroleum and the exploration for crude oil in this province to the extent that you have done in this bill, you will, over a period of the next two years, drive the exploration business out of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the matter of increase in royalties is the principle of the bill and was discussed during second reading. I would ask him to confine his statements to section 1.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I'm certainly confining my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to this section of the bill which increases the royalty by more than 150 per cent — 200 per cent on most of the petroleum exploration and production in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is the principle of the bill, I would point out.

MR. SMITH: That is contained in section 1, Mr. Chairman. The increase in royalties. That is the matter I am speaking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the matter you are discussing was discussed under second reading.

MR. SMITH: If you would allow me an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I'll relate my remarks to section 1 as it affects the exploration; not only the exploration, but the actual effect that this section will have on the provincial coffers in British Columbia. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that while this section is designed to pick up additional revenue in royalties for the Province of British Columbia, you will lose better than twice that amount from exploration in the province.

That's exactly what's going to happen. You may pick up $10 million a year here, and you'll lose $20 million a year from the business of leases and exploration permits in the Province of British Columbia.

If that's good business then the NDP certainly don't know the economics of the petroleum industry or anything else in the Province of British Columbia.

A reasonable increase would have been acceptable to the petroleum industry. But at a time when we're faced with an energy shortage in the whole western hemisphere, you have decided to go after the last buck right now and gouge the industry. Basically it's not going to affect the ones who are producing. But it will have an effect, all right. They'll still produce oil; they'll still pay that royalty. But the net effect of this will be to kill the exploration industry in the Province of British Columbia. Instead of finding new oil pools and new discoveries, they're going to look somewhere else — in some other part of Canada.

We have no licence, we have no exclusive rights on petroleum in the Province of British Columbia.

Certainly, as compared to other parts of Canada, including the Province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in the Mackenzie Delta, the rate of discovery here is far less. And the rate of return, in relation to what it costs to drill, is far less.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this House tonight that you've taken too big a bite, without consultation, without really looking at the overall effect. This bill and this section of the bill really will have the same net result as many other bills that came before the House this session. You may be able to look with great glee and pleasure upon what you've done on a temporary basis, But over a period of the next few years, even the next two years, you will find that the imposts recommended in this section of the bill will have resulted in the withdrawal of exploration for crude oil in the Province of British Columbia, and that's a sorry day for all of us, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I am deeply hurt by the Hon. Member's remarks because he didn't

[ Page 2913 ]

tell us about the incentives we got in there. All he was speaking about was the crude oil wells that have been in operation for a long time and have been paid back a good many times. But we have incentives in here and I see no reason why they shouldn't pass.

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

MR. SMITH: O.K. We'll talk about the incentives, so called. It's in subsection 2.

The incentive that you have suggested with respect to new discovery wells in new areas is no incentive at all. All it does is defer the royalty that would have been paid in a new discovery area, if and when that new discovery area is found, for a period of three years. Then the royalty that the Crown has imposed by this bill will come into full force and effect.

It makes no provision to offset the money that's spent in exploration by those companies that are unsuccessful. It gives no credit to the companies that do find a well, in relation to the number of dry holes that they may have drilled before they found that particular discovery.

In effect, it will not affect the petroleum industry at all, as far as exploration is concerned. It will have no effect on increasing exploration in the Province of British Columbia, because the money that is required to finance exploration is borrowed money — it comes in from the financial institutions in Canada. And the thing that they are most concerned about when they lend these millions of dollars to the petroleum companies that will be in the exploration end of the business, and are in the exploration end of the business in British Columbia, is that somewhere down the line they have a return on the money that they lent them, including principal and interest.

That money, and the source of that money, under this type of an incentive, will dry up, because it is not an incentive. The payout will still be required to be made by the petroleum industry, the incentive that you suggested is in this particular section of the bill is really not a true incentive at all. It makes no provision for the unsuccessful operators or unsuccessful drillers, as compared to the ones who finally find a well.

The net result will be that the petroleum industry, when exploring for crude oil in British Columbia, will confine their activities to the areas where they have reason to believe they have greatest chance of success. They'll not do the step-outs that they've been involved in in the past. They'll not explore into the new areas of the province where there may be another Leduc, because it's too costly and the risk is too great.

For the Minister to suggest that that is an incentive that will attract the petroleum industry and retain them in the province is pure speculation — it's pure nonsense. It will have no effect in that respect at all. If you want to really entice the exploration end of the industry to go into new areas to explore, then you should set up an incentive similar to that which is available in the Province of Alberta, where not only the people who drill a successful well but those who drill a number of dry holes have part of that cost of drilling written off against the first few years of royalty that would have been collected by the province. To me, Mr. Chairman, it's a sensible way of approaching an industry that is very vital to the economy of north-eastern British Columbia.

Certainly, had the Minister asked or really accepted the advice of the industry as expressed through their association, he would have seen the wisdom of what they were saying. I'm afraid that the thing that we're going to be faced with in this province is that because of an unrelenting attitude by the present government, we will effectively stifle the industry in this province, and the government will lose revenue because of that, we'll lose jobs because of that and we'll all be sorry as a result of that.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just rise briefly in support of the Member for North Peace River, who has spent many, many years in close association with the petroleum industry.

I say that because I've taken the trouble to enquire of the people in that particular area who will be directly affected by this particular legislation. I think the Member is absolutely correct. He has more experience in this field than anybody in the House. Furthermore, he comes from the area which will be directly affected by the Minister.

I was disappointed that the Minister in introducing this bill had obtained so little data, either from the industry or in the field, regarding the consequences of this particular bill. We heard Members of the NDP, when they were in opposition, railing against the petroleum industry and the supposed bloated profits that these firms were making. At the time the NDP made these opposition speeches, they were not informed opposition Members. They had not taken the trouble, Mr. Chairman, to check into the operation of this industry. Their speeches were as irresponsible then as their actions are today in government.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and his cabinet harboured deep prejudices against supposed industrial people who are raking British Columbia off, when in fact what they are doing is attempting to develop our resources in partnership with government and with the people of British Columbia.

These Members, Mr. Chairman, do not understand the northern part of this country. They do not

[ Page 2914 ]

understand the fact that this province is almost divided; that we need to have one set of policies for northern British Columbia which will encourage the development and harvesting of our resources, and another set of policies for southern British Columbia which will encourage manufacturing and the processing of these resources. And what the NDP government is doing with a series of bills which they are bringing in — this bill being a prime example — is to strangle the northern part of this province.

Mr. Chairman, it's ignorance and it's irresponsibility. The people who will be most hurt by this legislation are the people whom the NDP government has pledged to assist, namely the workers of the province who want only jobs, security and an opportunity for a day's wages for a day's work.

Mr. Chairman, this is being cut off, I say, by ignorance, by irresponsibility, none better illustrated than the failure of that Minister to understand what he has done, and by the failure of the Premier and the other fat cats in the cabinet, who wouldn't be seen dead, Mr. Chairman, doing a day's work in northern British Columbia, to pay an on-site visit to the area. I condemn the philosophy of the government, the ignorance of the Premier and the Minister.

I call upon them to heed the advice given in a responsible way by the Member for North Peace River, to permit the northern part of British Columbia to develop in the way that it can by withdrawing this kind of punitive and irresponsible legislation and by permitting the resources of northern British Columbia to be developed in the only way that they can.

Many people have been welcoming the social legislation introduced by the NDP government and no one, I think, has paid better compliments to the NDP in this regard than I have. But there is another side to this coin. At this particular time, we do not need the rather trivial revenues that this kind of legislation will bring in. What we do need badly, Mr. Chairman, is an expansion of the economy in northern British Columbia.

It's hard work. It's high risk. It's tough going. All of these things will only be undertaken if there is encouragement on the part of government and if there is understanding. It isn't just the people who are risking and undertaking a very high risk with their capital; it's the people who have committed their lives or a good part of their lives to working in that tough country to see northern British Columbia harnessed and developed for the good of all of the people.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation undercuts most of those British Columbia workers who have made this commitment. This particular bill is a sorry day for them. Just once more, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the government to listen to what that Member has to say and retract this legislation and all of those policies for northern British Columbia that they have introduced to date before they do any more damage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that after dinner the Member for West Point Grey who's concerned about the North has put on his….

MR. McGEER: Vancouver–Point Grey. May I just, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Do you have a point of order?

MR. McGEER: It's Vancouver–Point Grey and I'd appreciate it….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vancouver–Point Grey with all its oil wells, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Just get down all the various ridings in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is made; would the Hon. Member be seated?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey with all its oil wells has put on his running shoes with the little caption on the side, "We hurry." Tonight we've had a little speech from Standard Oil of New Jersey by way of Point Grey. It's interesting that we hear this great plea for the international oil cartels on behalf of the man running out in his sneakers saying, "You're ruining the north."

There's only ten years of proven oil reserves left in the north. The north has been creamed by the international oil cartels all these years. We're bringing in legislation, lo and behold, that's a little bit higher than what the Tories have brought in in Alberta. The Conservative government of Alberta found that after they came into power, shortly after the Social Credit administration had lived so long off the minuscule returns from the oil in the Province of Alberta, that they were forced because of deficits in their budgets to increase the royalty on oil in Alberta.

Now I find that the spokesman for the oil industry and the international oil cartels is none other than that right-winger of the right-wingers, the Member from West Point Grey. You know, Mr. Chairman, he said tonight that the workers only want a day's wages….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, You have a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Vancouver–Point Grey is the

[ Page 2915 ]

riding….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vancouver–Point Grey. Would the Member be seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vancouver–Point Grey and all its oil wells. Mr. Chairman, he said tonight that the workers only want a day's wages and a day's work. That's all he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order?

MR. McGEER: Could I point out to the Premier that there are no oil wells in Vancouver–Point Grey?

HON. MR. BARRETT: But you're sure lubricated tonight. (Laughter). You know, Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that he said that….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Withdraw, withdraw!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't interrupt him when he was speaking. I withdraw.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I find that they find it necessary to interrupt. After he had his say tonight about the oil wells, he said also, "The workers only want a day's wages and a day's work." What do you think the workers are in this province? A day's work and a day's wages — that went out a long time ago, Mr. Chairman, a long time ago.

What they want is a place in the sun, not only for themselves but for their children and their children's children. A day's work and a day's wages was a good slogan for the Liberal Party 30 years ago when they gave away the resources of this province — but when you've got a government for the first time protecting the resources, that Member resorts to old clichés and old slogans.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Lots of unemployment. And the federal Liberal government has done absolutely nothing about that, Mr. Member, absolutely nothing. Except that the federal Liberal government has learned that the loss of control of resources has been a factor in why we have unemployment, and the federal Liberal government set up the Pan-Arctic Corporation which will allow the Canadian people for the first time to have a share in the development of their resources. And they learned.

But that Liberal Member, through you Mr. Chairman, hasn't learned a single thing. He wants the outsiders to come in and do the drilling. Do you think that they're the United Appeal, Mr. Chairman? Do you think that they come in with their charitable dollars to grant gifts to those "daily workers"?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life I was. Mr. Chairman, we say that when Venezuela can get 50-50 on their oil resources, what's wrong with British Columbia getting 30 or 40 to 60 or 70 on their resources? Those Venezuelan oil companies said to every outside oil driller that it's 50-50 or nothing. The Liberals have yet to learn that half a loaf is better than nothing, but the oil companies know it is. They'll live with this.

Now my friend talks about the oil crisis and he makes a big song and dance about the fact that they may not be drilling in British Columbia. The oil reserves in North America are depleting every day. Whether it was the NDP or anyone else, it would be criminal in my opinion not to get a fair share for the people of British Columbia, and that's exactly what this Minister is trying to do with this particular bill.

I've enjoyed this whole session; but no more than on the debates like this, because we get a classic slice of what has gone on in this province year after year after year. The crying, the bleating, the pleading for the international cartels that have looked upon this province as a happy hunting ground. Well, this bill is not going to eliminate the happy hunting ground; all we're saying is that we want to share and that Minister is asking for a fair share.

That's what the election campaign was all about. That's why you dropped from 19 to 16 per cent. You go out and tell the north, and we'll go out and tell the north.

Mr. Chairman, 40 per cent is a fair share and many areas say it should be more; but 40 is all we're asking for and anybody that is reasonable will accept this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 as amended pass?

Section 1 approved with amendment.

On section 2.

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

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have an indication that the present government does not consider it within the bounds of good government to continue with agreements that have been authorized and set into force by a previous administration. The petroleum industry negotiated agreements with respect to the pooling of the royalty upon certain fields in the province on a pooled basis. They had every reason to believe that the agreements that were negotiated would be in full force and effect until 1975. But by this section the government has

[ Page 2916 ]

emasculated those agreements, and has indicated to the petroleum industry, loud and clear, that they will all be renegotiated on the basis of the higher royalty.

Now, this is the type of manoeuvre by the government that places you, as government, in serious jeopardy with respect to the continuation of the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No more Premier!

MR. SMITH: I'd like to quote from an article that appeared in one of the newspapers on March 3, 1973, and the comment comes from the Victoria Daily Colonist. It's a comment made by the then President of the Canadian Petroleum Association, B.C. division:

"The proposed legislation enabling the massive oil royalty increase raises severe doubts as to whether past or future investors have any prospect of return or, in fact, the opportunity to recover their investment.

"Moreover, the manner in which the government proposes to carry out these changes raises questions as to the sanctity of any agreement now or hereafter made with the government of the province."

Mr. MacIntosh goes on to say that the agreements are in effect in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that they have five-year agreements there which they had reason to believe would be honoured in the Province of British Columbia and that the agreements in force would not become subject to renegotiation before 1975.

So what you have said to the petroleum industry with this section of the Act is that no agreement made in good faith will be recognized by the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources or the government of this province, and that you are prepared on any whim to step in and cancel previous agreements. We've seen the same attitude adopted by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) with respect to TFLs (tree farm licences). We see it right here in a new statute that's being proposed for the Province of British Columbia.

I have heard the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) many times in this House, when he was in opposition, stand in his place and rail against injustices, changes that he felt were being forced upon the people by the then government of this province. Yet he is quite prepared to go along with a statute or an amendment to a statute which will allow him to renegotiate all the agreements with respect to the collection of royalty in this province — agreements which were negotiated in good faith, agreements which the petroleum industry were prepared to live up to, agreements which they now find are null and void at the whim of a Minister and his department.

Is it any wonder that the petroleum industry is presently looking at British Columbia with a jaundiced eye? They know that as long as the present government is in power here whatever may be said presently, or negotiations and agreements that are agreed to right now, will have no force and effect six months, a year, or two years down the line.

This is why the government is losing the confidence of the business sector of this province and those people who would, if given a fair opportunity, not only invest in this province but support our economy with jobs, with new industry, with an increasing programme because of the situation in the petroleum industry with respect to supply. The Minister with these two Sections is prepared to throw that whole programme right out the window.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that jobs will be lost, that the industry has no faith in this government because of the fact that they cannot depend upon them to hold up agreements and honour agreements that have been drawn and negotiated in good faith, and that we will see a decrease in the revenue from petroleum industry at a time when it should be increasing. Because the potential for exploration is still average as compared to many other parts of Canada. It is greater than some parts because there is no oil there to be discovered — at least no one has found it. Yet the Minister, through this section, has indicated to the petroleum industry that even the agreements that they had placed in effect will not be honoured by this government.

It is going to result in decreased employment, decreased exploration activity and decreased revenue to the province. We're all going to be sorry for that fact happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but reply to the Hon. Member in regard to speaking about agreements that were made in good faith. I am rather proud of this section because I don't think that those agreements are made in good faith with the people of British Columbia.

Forty-six per cent of the production of our oil was made under agreements that allowed the companies the same rate of taxation until the well runs dry. At no time, if it lasted 50 years….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Do you mean to tell me that if those wells lasted 50 years from now we should still be just collecting 5 per cent to 16 2/3 per cent on them? Mr. Brothers, when he was Minister of

[ Page 2917 ]

Mines, signed those agreements, and I think it was an injustice against the people of British Columbia. This is what I'm thinking of — the injustice that was done to the people of British Columbia. What we're doing now is to correct that injustice that was done to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

On proposed section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment that provides a section 3 pass?

Amendment approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: 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.

Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: De la loi quarante-quatre, Monsieur Forateur.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quarante-quatre.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, my gosh. I wonder if the Hon. Premier would say that in French. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Ah, oui.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't like my French, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: Eh bien!

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): You should introduce the next bill in Gaelic. (Laughter).

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MINERAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 44; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to say very much on section 3 tonight, other than to say that the opposition has taken a very, very firm stand on Bill 44. This section tonight, when the government uses its usual steamroller tactics….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, here we go again!

MR. PHILLIPS: It's bulldozer tactics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: They will shove this through in their usual manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ramrod is the word.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the bells will ring out the death knell for the mining industry in British Columbia. The industry that provides 25 cents out of every dollar that moves in British Columbia….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This doesn't deal with that; this deals with….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes it does! This is the free miner's certificate — don't find any minerals. Mr. Minister, you know very well this is the section that you put in this Act that kills the mining industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I was just making it Canadian.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we have to pump taxpayers' money into industries that are dying on their feet, while we're killing jobs by Bill 44. This government will shove it through — they'll ram it through. They'll ramrod it all right. You'd better believe they'll ramrod it, and they'll be sorry. But we'll look back in the record.

[ Page 2918 ]

We've spent enough time advising the Minister that he should go home, that he should resign, that he isn't qualified to be Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't be so unkind. Leave me in here a little while.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister has got the skin of a rhinoceros. It doesn't get through to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member continue with section 3?

MR. PHILLIPS: We are opposed to this section. Very firmly we are opposed to it. We'll be here next year, and we'll tell you how many jobs you've lost, Mr. Minister of Mines, because of this bill.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You were getting a little too speedy there, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, in section 4(2)(b)(ii) where it says, "not a Canadian citizen, but who has not, at the date he applies for, or applies to renew, a free miner's certificate… " et cetera — it implies to me that it is exclusionary in rather than permitting a person who has lived in Canada for more than eight years, it says he should not be. And I wondered if there is some amendment necessary there. It seems that you exclude people who are not Canadian citizens, and who have lived in Canada for eight years. Am I right in my interpretation, Mr. Minister, or not?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is to cover landed immigrants who are here up to eight years. Not more than eight years. We feel that by that time a person has time enough to decide whether he wants to become a Canadian citizen or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 18 inclusive approved with amendments.

On section 19.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A quick question to the Minister involving section 19 and subsequent sections. Is "rental payment, prescribed annual rental fee…" and it goes on to "prescribed rental…" et cetera — are these all the same thing? You use a different term in each case, and I wondered if they were all the same thing. I think they are, but I wondered whether you would comment upon it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You mean on the…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, "rental payment" is in section 19. In 21(51)(1)(a), you have "…pay the prescribed annual rental fee."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They are all the same thing, eh?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. They go on. There are a few other variations on this particular theme, and I think you might get your lawyers to straighten it out and use one term throughout.

Sections 19 and 20 approved with amendment.

On section 21.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In this section 21(51)(3)(b), that's on p. 6, a third of the way down. You have "anniversary year." Now we have celebrated many anniversaries in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The amendment knocks out the "anniversary."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I was unable to find the amendment.

Sections 21 to 46 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 2919 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Mineral Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Committee on Bill No. 47, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL PROPERTY TAXATION ACT
REPEAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 47; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: 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. 47, Mineral Property Taxation Act Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Committee on Bill No. 64, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 64; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I have a number of comments to make concerning this bill, and I have sent over, a little earlier this evening, copies to the Hon. Minister of certain amendments that I will be proposing, which are about five in number.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've lost them, Garde.

MR. GARDOM: Have you lost them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yeah.

MR. GARDOM: Oh.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Here they are.

MR. GARDOM: Have you got them? I can get a copy made for you. Have you found them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yeah.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: They were in the bottom of the well, were they? That's the stuff.

I'm afraid we find in this bill a number of legislative imperfections and I would like to draw the Hon. Minister's attention to some of them.

First of all, in the definition of mineral which we find under section 1, Mr. Chairman, it literally includes every mineral in land, exclusive of quantity and exclusive of quality.

Then we get into the definition next of mineral land, and it means land other than Crown land; so it means all private land in the province.

The third item that gives me great concern is the definition of owner, which is too restrictive and too definitive. The assessment that I would gainsay myself out of reading this is that it might have been the intention of the bill only to get to the early Crown grants, but this is not what the bill says and it's all-inclusive.

An owner, under the definitions of this bill, Mr. Chairman, may not have any right to a mineral at all, absolutely no right to a mineral at all. But he may be still subject to a tax which, apart from being taxation without representation, is taxation without any right whatsoever.

In summation, the literal interpretation of the bill, and I think the interpretation that any court in the land would give the bill, is that you'll be taxing owners. You have the right to determine, and arbitrarily determine, exactly who an owner is. I would say that your bill extends to all owners of land and it will particularly and adversely affect farmers and ranchers and holders of timberland.

To utilize the definitions that you've given under the bill, because they're so broad and so encompassing, they would include the land of any city lot in Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster, Burnaby or what have you. Now this surely must be well beyond its original intent, and I'd like to make the following comments.

The definition of mineral land is far too broad. As it now reads under your statute, Mr. Minister, mineral lands will comprise all land other than Crown land in the province.

Now, for example, if there is a mineral situate in a parcel of land, then that land can become mineral land. But there are minerals, in the broad sense, in every parcel of land in the Province of B.C. If it's intended under your Act — you certainly haven't

[ Page 2920 ]

spelled it out — that the minerals that you wish to fall within the purview of the Act are only those that are economically recoverable, then the definition of mineral that you have must be revised. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to revise that, but I mention it to you because you've gone the whole way and have included as a definition of mineral and mineral land every single solitary two-foot block of earth in the Province of B.C.

The Minister laughs and says, "My God, did I do that?" You did. Your first time out but you never meant to go that far. But you have gone that far. It may well be, Mr. Minister, that the draftsman or you intended that mineral land would be only those lands that were Crown-granted before 1897, when the minerals at that time were not reserved to the Crown but would pass to the owner of the fee simple. If this is the case, what you have here will be discriminatory legislation, if the owner of the earlier Crown-granted land does not intend to develop or utilize the minerals that may or may not be on his land.

It is also to be noted, Mr. Minister, that if a person owns land and a free miner stakes a mineral claim upon that land, then the free miner has the right to work and carry away those minerals. As a result of actions well beyond the control of the owner and completely without his acquiescence, the owner of that land can have his land designated — your term — as mineral land — your definition — under subsection 1(2).

The owner of that mineral land will be responsible for mineral land taxes. His land can become subject to forfeiture if they're not paid. Yet he has no interest at all in the minerals.

So you see it's a ludicrous situation. As I've said, You've got taxation not only without representation, but taxation without any benefit. I would say that if nothing else, the way this Act is drawn right now, the only bonanza I can see in it will be for mining lawyers to go ahead and try to interpret it and cover it by contract.

Still under this section 1 in your definitions, if a person owns the land subject to a Crown-granted mineral claim, which would be registered as an encumbrance on the reverse of his certificate of title then, notwithstanding the fact that he hasn't any right to the minerals, his land could be classified as mineral land and subject to tax. It's gone far, far, too far. You never intended to go that far.

The definition of "owner" that you have is all-inclusive. They should more precisely relate to persons who are shown on your mineral land tax roll. Is the Minister with me? I guess he's not. Is he? Good. It's not really the most sparkling stuff. I have to agree with you there. I'm the first to admit that. (Laughter). However, I'm doing my duty.

The owner may not be the holder of these rights to remove minerals and so he should not be classified as an owner and subjected to tax. There's one other item here. In the safeguards of the interests of this owner, surely to goodness at least he should have the right to claim over against a holder of the mineral rights for unpaid taxes. Because that's the individual who can produce the unpaid-tax situation. Therefore, Mr. Chairman — and you have the motion in front of you — I would move to change the definition of owner as it now stands under the Act.

It reads now: " 'Owner' includes a person who has the right to work, win" — whatever that means — "or carry away minerals from any mineral land." We would alter that definition to read: " ‘Owner' includes a person who has the right to work, win or carry away minerals from any mineral land and who is shown as owner on the mineral land tax roll." At least go ahead and make sure that you've got an owner on the tax roll before you clobber him with taxes. You have the right here to clobber people who are not the owners, but in the final analysis end up with the owner and make him pay.

I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, he asked questions and then he answered his own questions. That's typical of the law fraternity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Having lived with my son for quite a while, I know what it is.

The owner here is "a person who has the right to work, win or carry away minerals." You made a statement that the owner of any land could be taxed. This is the owner of the mineral rights, Because we've got lots of people in the province who own the mineral rights but don't own the surface rights.

MR. GARDOM: It doesn't say that. Read it out loud.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the definition of an owner. "Includes a person who has the right to work, win or carry away minerals." Now, if you don't own the mineral rights, you can't carry away the minerals, Therefore, it's in there.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: It was touch and go, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter),

[ Page 2921 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just briefly. Section 2 seems to me to be another of these areas in which government treats with a very cavalier attitude legitimate contracts signed by anyone. This government has no conception of what a contract is all about. Section 2 in this Act seems to me to be sort of a backhanded way of breaking contracts.

Certainly the investor is the loser in all of these sections, Mr. Chairman. The reason for the chill in the air with regard to investors in this industry is not hard to understand when you read a section like this. In effect, it permits the government to designate production areas over land which, one way or another, has been the subject of a contract at one time, and usually a long-standing contract. Yet this government will come along and just break the contract and designate the area.

Because of that, Mr. Chairman, once again the official opposition cannot go along with this kind of legislation. We sincerely wish that the government opposite would finally get it in its head that a contract is a contract and it cannot or should not be broken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Just a little fun thing here for after dinner. There are going to be one, two, three, four, five — five categories of owners that are going to be exempt from tax and that are not covered by the Interpretation Act as I see it.

First of all, there is one of these categories in between (a) and (b). If I happen to own exactly 50,000 acres then I would be exempt from tax. If I happened to own 100,000 acres I would be exempt from tax. If I owned exactly 500,000 acres or 1 million acres I would be exempt from tax according to the Interpretation Act.

Now I would move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that the government pays more attention to the sponsor of an amendment than the good sense of the amendment. Therefore, since I run the risk of being turned down by virtue of the fact that it is being sponsored by the Social Credit Party, I would like to leave it with the Minister of Mines to change the wording in subsection (b) to read, rather than, "where his total mineral land comprises more than 50,000…" it should read, "where his total mineral land comprises 50,000 acres or more, but less than 100,000."

In subsection (e) it should read, "where his total mineral land comprises 100,000 acres or more, but less than 250,000." Do you see it there, Leo? Pardon me, the Hon. Minister of Mines. You see it there, do you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think you'd get away with it.

MR. SCHROEDER: You look at the Interpretation Act. I think if you and I were on opposite sides of the fence I think I'd win the case. Just a good, jolly suggestion for a jolly gentleman. Bless you, son. (Laughter).

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to section 4 but since section 4 and 5 have some similarities in them, I'd like to just read this because even I find it a little complicated.

"It appears that there is a different tax provided in the case of designated mineral land situated within a production area. For this mineral land, the rate of tax is $2 per acre plus a mill rate, according to the Act, of an amount not exceeding 25 mills on each dollar of the assessment. That is 2 1/2 percentage points of the value of the designated mineral land. This higher tax for designated mineral land situated within a production area would not be in addition to the lower tax rate; that is, the tax rate provided in clause 4 of between 25 cents and $1 per acre. The apparent intent of clauses 4 and 5 is, under clause 4, to tax such mineral lands as have no apparent present economic value and to tax at a higher rate under clause 5 those mineral lands that are either being exploited or have a present economic value.

"However, under the definition section, designated mineral land means, 'land that is designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.'

"To sum it up, this puts in the hands of the government the power to designate any mineral lands to be subject to clause 5 rather than clause 4. Clause 5 of the bill provides that the mineral rate shall be at a rate not exceeding 25 mills. In other words, the rate of tax on designated mineral land will be completely at the discretion of the government, subject to the overall limit of 25 mills. "

[ Page 2922 ]

What I'm trying to say is that I had a hard time trying to figure that out. How does the assessor decide?

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

MR. GARDOM: The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) made an absolutely correct and an absolutely valid point. The Act is not properly drawn.

Now it is a very simple thing you do. You've just got to put in the words "or more" and take out the words, "more than." For goodness sakes, accept his amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't make an amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll do it.

MR. GARDOM: Now you're looking at section 4(b). Well, he's going to do it right now. There's the form; there he goes.

Now, what the Hon. Member for Chilliwack is going to say is this. (Laughter). Under (b) where his total mineral land comprises 50,000 acres or more — that's right. And then carrying on the same thing in (c). So you take out the words, "more than" in the first line of (b) and substitute after "acres" in the second line of (b) the words "or more." Then do exactly the same thing in (c), exactly the same thing in (d) and exactly the same thing in (e).

The Member has proposed a perfectly valid, perfectly correct premise here. He's writing out the amendment and is the Hon. Minister prepared to accept his amendment?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I agree.

MR. GARDOM: Good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll dispose of this other matter first.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't make an amendment before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm recognizing the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey at this particular point. And then I'll recognize the Member for Victoria.

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes. But the Hon. Member for Chilliwack is going to move this. But just so that there is not any uncertainty, it would cover the amendment in (b), (c), (d) and (e)…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. GARDOM: …Mr. Minister, by deleting in the first line in each of those sections the two words "more than" and by substituting after the word "acres" in the second….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I was. I lived in the Fraser Valley for the better part of 12 years.

After the word "acres" in each case, the words, "or more." So you'll find that going in sections 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e). I certainly support the Hon. Member for Chilliwack's amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll dispose of the amendments proposed by the Hon, Member for Chilliwack before we recognize the Member for Victoria.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the purport of the amendments is understood.

MR. SCHROEDER: I so move, Mr. Chairman. With leave of the House — the advisory over there….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You do not require leave of the House. You may propose an amendment. Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Chilliwack pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 4 approved with amendment.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was wondering about the problem of associated companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 5?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, 4. There seems to be no way here of separating companies which may want to split themselves up to avoid tax. You have taxes of up to $1 million if they have over 1 million acres of land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A million acres.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. They have $1 million of tax if they have I million acres. Right? O.K.

Now what happens if they decide to split the thing up under associated but separate companies? Is that covered in your Act, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 2923 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, if the one company owns a million acres of mineral rights in the Province of British Columbia, they would be taxed accordingly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At the present time one company may own a million acres and thus be subject to $1 million a year tax. But they say, "This is ridiculous." They split themselves up into five, six or seven smaller companies, all of which are associated and perhaps have the same board of directors. They might avoid your tax. You wouldn't want that, would you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If they get a good lawyer and do that, I guess we can't do anything about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure you can. You certainly could if you wished. I just wonder whether you intend to.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You'd have to make sure that they were all owned by the same people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm told by my friend that it might kill his business so I'll leave it with you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound on section 5. We've disposed of section 4.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would the Minister indicate how he will resolve the problem that faces those people who are in the ranching industry and who, by reason of the age of the title to their lands, have certain mineral rights as part of their title?

The consequences of this section would be that upon designation, even though those lands are to be used in perpetuity for ranching purposes, they'd be subject to tax. If they release their right to minerals, then of course they are at the whim of people who may wish to prospect. Suddenly the ranchland becomes mining property and therefore no longer usable for the grazing of cattle. You could scarcely graze cattle in an open-pit mine.

Many of these ranchers desire to retain their properties as they are to preclude any development of a mine for fear of losing the surface rights, and yet in so doing they find themselves subjected to this tax when they don't intend to mine at all. Would the Minister indicate what relief there may be for people who find themselves in this situation?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, the privilege of having mineral rights of your land should be worth something if you want to keep them. If you don't want to keep them, all you have to do is turn the mineral rights back to the Crown, and you keep the surface. There are situations where some people own the mineral rights and other people own the surface over the mineral rights.

I say that under this Act, if any of the farmers — I don't know how many there would be — who own mineral rights don't want the mineral rights, they can turn them back to the Crown. If we were to make fish out of one and fowl out of the other under this Act, you as a lawyer know well enough that it would immediately be termed unconstitutional and we wouldn't get it through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister hasn't answered the problem that arises once you turn the mineral rights back to the Crown and someone wishes to go in and explore those lands for….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You have to ask permission.

MR. WILLIAMS: They have to ask permission from you. Well, that's the question I'm asking. When someone comes along to seek permission from the Minister of Mines for the purpose of exploration and development….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. He's got to ask for permission from the owner.

MR. WILLIAMS: From the owner?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: From the owner under this Act? The owner under this definition?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's under the Mineral Act. It would revert to them. Once it had come back to the public, then it reverts to the Mineral Act. It's not a Crown-granted mineral claim any more. They've got to follow the Mineral Act then, and you've got to ask permission to go on somebody's land. If you really want to go, you've got to put up a bond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if I'm wrong here, I'm sure the Minister will set me straight. I noticed in subsection 1(b) it provides for the Crown to attach a tax of up to 25 mills land tax from the looks of it, and yet there is no provision anywhere in here for local government to benefit in any way from that tax. Yet it is an area in which local government is usually allowed to be supreme. I'm wondering if there is any possibility that some of that money will revert to local government?

[ Page 2924 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, this is not on the land, it's on the mineral rights so it doesn't tax the surface.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Subsection (b) says that it's the assessment of this designated mineral land situated within the production area; not the minerals coming out of the land, but the land itself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's just a definition. When you look back here at the definition of mineral lands, you mean, "land, other than Crown land…any mineral is, or may be, situated…."

MR. McCLELLAND: But it still means land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, it's the mineral, and it's got to be…. It's mineral land.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't buy that because that isn't what the definition says. The definition says that it means, "land, other than Crown land…" under which or in which the mineral may be situated. So in this instance we are taxing land, not minerals, according to your own definitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mineral lands.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, mineral land, which is land regardless. And as the Minister has explained, that mineral land may lie anywhere; it may be under your backyard, for all we know. But it's still land and not minerals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

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

MR. GARDOM: Section 6(2)(b) Mr. Chairman, says that the administrator may, "take such steps and use such sources of information as he considers necessary." Now what you've given here statutorily is an enormous power and one that is, in my view, far, far unnecessary. What are "steps"? The 39 steps? Any kind of a step whatsoever?

The man has an administrative function in any event, so it is not necessary to go ahead and describe the thing in complete breadth within the terms of the statute. He can also use sources of information as he considers necessary. Anybody could end up with a kooky kind of administrator and if you give him the total power to use sources of administration as he deems necessary, does that mean, for example, he can start inquiring into income tax forms? Does that mean he can go ahead and use it for purposes of unfair persuasion and the balancing of one side against the other?

It's an excessive power; it's not necessary for him to carry out his administrative function. I've filed an amendment with the Clerks and I now do move that section 6(b) be deleted. Section 6(2)(b).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You'd emasculate the whole bill if you took out section 6.

MR. GARDOM: Well then, you really have issued the caveat here. This is a real super-snooper kind of situation you're suggesting. If you say that your whole bill is depending upon a totality of power such as you've given here, you've certainly let the cat out of the bag for the Province of B.C.

If that's what you want: the capacity for any person to take any kind of steps that he deems necessary and use any kind of sources of information as he deems necessary — why does he have to have that complete breadth? You've almost got more power in that section — and you say you lose the bill without it — than you found in the Energy Act,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: And you say it emasculates the bill if that's not there. Well then, if that's the situation, you're proposing a very sinister bill here which you've not told us about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm using his words.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: He's not dexter, either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The force of the amendment is to delete part (b) of subsection 2 of section 6.

Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria on section 6.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, in section 6 in substance we have an Act in which the subject to be taxed, namely designated mineral land, is not determinable; where the rate of tax, namely the mill

[ Page 2925 ]

rate, is not determinable; and where the tax base, namely the assessed value, is impossible to determine. Because of these extremely broad taxing powers, I think that this section again gives the government another blank cheque.

I don't care whether it's this government or the next government that comes along, but under this section it does give them the right to impose taxes that are so onerous and could be so ruinous as to result in confiscation of the mineral rights in the mining properties in this section.

Now section 6 also has one other item which I want to mention as well. This is the part of the section which gives them the information to mail out to every owner on May 1 of each year the tax assessment which earlier I said I don't know how they are going to figure out. Frankly, I have no idea how the man who owns the mineral rights is going to find out whether it's right or wrong because I really can't see how you figure it out.

But I also must now refer to another section. If he wants to appeal, which he has the right to do in section 6, then he gets down into section 23 and he has approximately 15 days to decide whether this tax was right or wrong on a basis of which, as I say, I have really no idea how you are going to figure out. I'm sure he hasn't any idea how to figure it out. Yet he has to tell you within 15 days, and if you take the mailing time off it could be 10 or 11 days. He has to tell you in full when he decides he is going to appeal the assessment. So you simply haven't given him enough time.

It's absolutely wrong. This section of the bill should be completely removed. It's a terrible section. The things it allows are really very, very bad.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the only place that the assessment applies is in the case of a production tract. The other is a flat rate of 25 cents to $1. There is no assessment there at all. The assessment with 12.5 mills the first year and 25 mills the second year is against the assessment, and the assessment will be based on production of the previous year.

MR. MORRISON: It says that you can deem it any way you want it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, we could, but we are not going to do it any way we like it.

MR. MORRISON: Sure. Again you say, "Well, we're not going to do it, but the power is there to do it.” That's the point I am trying to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria. Would you address the Chair, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to agree with my colleague from Victoria. This puts the administrator in a very interesting position with tremendous power.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can appeal the assessments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's great. But nevertheless, the initial stage where the administrator basically sets the tax for people under this section and, of course, the previous section as well….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Act sets the tax.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Act sets the tax, but he sets the designated value of the mineral land.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But you do that with all your land. Your municipalities are doing it every day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't know whether the municipalities have some of the powers such as, for example, "take such steps and use such sources of information as he considers necessary."

We think that in a situation such as this where the uncertainty is so great and when you go on, as the Hon. First Member for Victoria mentioned, in the appeal sections, you're simply handing over virtually the whole power to tax, which should be the role and function of this Legislature, to an administrator.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, no. The tax is there in the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 6 pass?

Section 6 approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

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

MR. GARDOM: On section 9, Mr. Chairman, the concept of production tracts could indeed cause very serious consequences where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates as a production tract several parcels of land of separate owners.

Now under section 3(l), the Lieutenant-Governor has the ability to designate any portion of the province to be a production tract, which was the point made just a few seconds ago by Victoria over

[ Page 2926 ]

here. But under section 9(5) which is the one…. Are you looking at 9(5), Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I'm looking at it.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, good stuff. Under 9(5), the owners of the parcels contained in the production tract are jointly liable for the tax. Now without any action by a landowner, this land is arbitrarily comprised in a production tract, and he becomes liable for his neighbour's mineral land tax, notwithstanding that he…(Laughter).

I just got a note that amused me. I didn't think Xavier was here, however….

Thus without action by a landowner, his land is arbitrarily comprised in a production tract and he becomes liable for his neighbour's mineral land tax, notwithstanding that he might not have any mining operations or any intention of carrying on mining operations on his own parcels of land. In fact, he might not have any interest whatsoever in the minerals underlying his parcel.

So what you're saying here is that an owner is jointly and severally liable for tax if he's under a production tract. That's what it says, right?

You can have no end of people under a production tract. One fellow who might be exercising mineral rights or have minerals and another who is not — who is equally an owner — and the way I read this thing is that you make them jointly and severally liable. That's quite inequitable. Therefore I would move, Hon. Minister — and the motion is with the Chairman — that we delete subsection 4 and renumber the existing subsection 5 as subsection 4.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman….

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, when I was making my remarks here, I was referring to No. 5 incorrectly. I'm speaking about No. 4.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I know. I realize that because usually when the legal fraternity speaks of one thing, they might mean another. Anyway, this is a production tract. This is a mine. If there's a mine or claims that they're working on owned by two or three different owners, which we have in some instances, then they're all liable for the tax.

This is a tax on the production, in a production tract. It's not….

MR. GARDOM: You make excellent sense with your definition; I agree with you. But, you see, you're talking about a mine and your Act says a production tract. You can go ahead and nominate as a production tract, Mr. Minister, say, 100,000 acres or 50,000 acres as a production tract and you may have on that production tract a mine, which you're talking about, under more than one owner of the mine. But at the other end — the "north forty," shall we say — you find Mr. Nimsick Jr. happening to own some land. By virtue of it being a production tract, he is jointly and severally responsible for the total tax on the production tract. And it's wrong.

Your concept is completely correct, but the language in your bill is incorrect.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, accept my concept and I'll talk to my lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you at least do get the point.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll talk to my lawyer.

MR. GARDOM: All right. I think it would be best cured by just going ahead and deleting…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, no.

MR. GARDOM: …what you have here. I'll tell you why: because if you do have more than one owner, according to land law they are jointly and severally responsible anyway. You know that. Under the law of partnership partners are jointly and severally responsible. If you've got two or three companies acting in concert in a particular situation, they're responsible for the tax if they own the property.

You keep shaking your head.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You lawyers can twist it around. You can twist it.

MR. GARDOM: There's nothing being twisted, nothing whatsoever. Why don't you ask the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), since the Attorney General is out of the House, to come up and sit beside you and go through some of these things. This is equally as valid, if not more so, than the great amendment from my friend from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

Well, look, is it native cunning that's making you say "no"?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What?

MR. GARDOM: Is it native cunning that's making you say "no"? There must be some reason behind it. Eh? You're suspicious. You are suspicious of people.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No — I'm not suspicious of you at all.

MR. GARDOM: You're not?

[ Page 2927 ]

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

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

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

MR. MORRISON: Section 11 gives the Crown the right to have a lien on the property, but no requirement to register that lien. I think it's important that that lien should be registered under section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 11 pass?

Section 11 approved.

Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

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

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the fact that 9 per cent interest on taxes is a very high rate. It seems to be higher than any other interest rate charged by any other province. It seems very high and extremely unnecessary. What's the reason for that high rate?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, according to one Act, 9 per cent is the regular tax today. We're not trying to compete with the other loaning companies. It's what the legal fraternity inform me is the regular tax the government has.

MR. MORRISON: Is that the tax in future on all overdue taxes?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you're charged 10 per cent on city taxes.

MR. MORRISON: The Province of British Columbia doesn't.

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

MR. McGEER: I think we deserve a better explanation of usury on the part of the government than "it's just the standard rate for lawyers." Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that lawyers are usurious — but the socialist government?

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, here we have "the board shall consist of three people" and yet it's left uncertain as to how many people shall constitute a quorum. Presumably this should be fixed at two and it should not be left…or is it the intention of the government to fix it at one? I would say the best thing to do would be to put in the number "two" there. It makes sense. And I don't see why it has to be left to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is 21(3)(a).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's only going to be a three-man board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in actual fact it shall consist of a chairman and two other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It would seem absurd to have a quorum of one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is proposing to have the Minister answer, would the Minister rise on that point?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, would he like to comment on that? Because it doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. I would just like some order so that Hansard doesn't get confused. When the Hon. Member asks a question of the Minister I would request that he sit down so that the Minister might stand to answer so the mike might pick it up — if he so chooses.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, did you want me to answer? It's answered right there, "Subject to the fixing of the quorum, no vacancy in the membership of the board shall impair the right of the remaining board members to act." So it would be a majority.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K. Well why don't we fix it as a certain number then, instead of just leaving it with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? Is there any reason for doing so?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, anytime you have a quorum it's usually a majority. If it's a five-member board, three would be a quorum. If it's a three-member board….

[ Page 2928 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 21 pass?

Section 21 approved.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

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

MR. GARDOM: Under section 23, Mr. Chairman, we find a very restricted mode of appeal. There's only three named here: if a person objects to being assessed as an owner, if he objects to the amount of assessment made against his mineral land, or if he objects to the amount of mineral land tax payable under the Act. Those are his only three rights of appeal. We don't feel it's broad enough.

Under section 23(l) a person can only object to an assessment against his mineral land, although he may be responsible for tax payable in respect of his lands being included in a production tract, which I was arguing about a few moments ago and you agreed to look into it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not unless he's got mineral rights.

MR. GARDOM: That's right, but there can be mineral rights on the production tract, and you can have people who don't have mineral rights on the production tract and still be jointly responsible for the tax. If a person is going to be responsible for payment of tax, he should certainly have the right to object to the assessment which is the root of the tax. That's only fair.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that we amend the section by adding three rights of appeal. These are to be added as section 23, subsection 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f). Subsection l(d) is to read this way: "Where a person objects to being designated as an owner by the opinion of the administrator." He would have the right to appeal that.

"Where a person objects to his land being considered mineral land within the definition of the Act, he would have the right to appeal that as (e)." Thirdly, as (f), if a person objects to the inclusion of his land in a production area production tract, he would have the right to appeal that too.

So I'm suggesting three additional rights of appeal to the three that you have raised. You have them in front of you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I've got them. In the first part, (d), being designated as an owner by the opinion of the administrator, the only way that the administrator can designate him as an owner is if he has got indefeasible title to the mineral rights. So I mean he's got no argument there. His land being considered mineral land, it isn't land that…his surface rights are not considered. It's the rights to the minerals underneath the land. The other is dealing strictly with production tracts and they've got an appeal against the assessment on a production….

MR. GARDOM: Yes. Well, dealing with the first item that you raised, Mr. Minister, under your section 7, for the purpose of making an assessment under the Act, a person becomes an owner if the administrator so opines. Under 7(b), a person "who in the opinion of the administrator is an owner with respect to mineral land." Now you're talking about registered interests and all these things. The point is, you see, that it's not within the Act. What you're saying is one thing, and I agree with your definition here for the second time tonight. I agree with your explanation, but the terminology in your bill does not carry out what you explained to the House.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes. But I was informed that my terminology wasn't legal terminology, and they put it down here in legal terminology.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you'd better have another chat with that fellow, because I agree with your interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to section 23 pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 23 pass? I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria on section 23.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, once again I'd like to bring out this point that if anyone chooses to appeal the assessment that he has approximately 15 days in which to do so. This appears to be a new departure for this government. Most other Acts allow at least 60 days or 90 days to appeal an assessment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not the Municipal Act.

MR. MORRISON: This appears to be a very short time for an assessment such as this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 23 pass?

[ Page 2929 ]

Section 23 approved.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

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

MR. GARDOM: First of all I would like to pay my respects to Hansard. They've done a marvellous job this session. They really have. Secondly, I do hope that whoever is responsible for overtime pay for people such as Hansard and the attendants in the House, that that's been adequately taken care of because I think, expressing my own views and I'm sure the views of all of the Members of the House, that they've really done well above and beyond the call of duty.

Now section 27(3). This is not overly stimulating, I have to agree with you. section 27(3). This is an amazing power, and this time I am delighted to see that you have a criminal lawyer sitting beside you, because under subsection 3…no offence to you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How do you mean that? (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: He's got a thick skin, you know. (Laughter). Under subsection 3, where a corporation commits an offence under the Act, "any officer, director, employee or agent of the corporation who directed or authorized, assented to, acquiesced, or participated in the commission of the offence is, whether or not the corporation is prosecuted for the offence, a party to and guilty of the offence without trial." Without trial. Now really and truly you'd find him guilty without trial and whether the corporation was even prosecuted or not.

This is absolutely preposterous, Mr. Chairman. The provisions of this subsection provide that the corporation need not be prosecuted for an offence, yet these officers, or directors, or employees are guilty of the offence. It's very preposterous to suggest that any of those individuals who are named, or in fact anyone in this country, could be guilty without an opportunity to appear in court and defend his position.

Now presumably it would be quite sufficient to jointly or separately charge such defaulters with the offence, but we should not have in the Province of British Columbia a legislative decision of guilt without trial.

You know one of the golden threads that runs through the concept of criminal law is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty — and proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This concept initiated itself way, way back in the days of Henry II, and it's the type of thing that we certainly shouldn't eliminate in the days of Leo I.

Now I would therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that the section now read as follows: "Where a corporation commits an offence under this Act, any officer, director, employee or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized" — and up to this point your section is the same, Mr. Minister — "directed, authorized, assented to or participated in the commission of the offence is subject to prosecution for the offence and this subsection does not affect the liability of the corporation or any said officer, director, employee or agent of the corporation for the same offence."

Now this gives the right to charge these people. I see the necessity for your provision here, but it does not make them automatically found guilty without hearing, without evidence, and without trial by nothing more than legislative incompetence.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. A little more quiet.

MR. GARDOM: What you've got here is a situation of these people being judged guilty by the terminology in your statute without an opportunity to have their day in court, without trial, without hearing, without evidence, without anything. I think you have gone too far.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, are you going to sit down or are you going to stay up?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've been sitting so long today…(Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say that before the corporation…the corporation would have to be found guilty.

MR. GARDOM: That's not what it says. It does not.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Where a corporation commits an offence — they don't commit an offence….

MR. GARDOM: It doesn't say a corporation can be brought to trial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A person isn't judged before

[ Page 2930 ]

he is found guilty under this Act if any officer, director, employee is involved. I see nothing wrong with the Act at all, and I've got some very expert legal advice.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's an awful thing to say about your advice. But really and truly, for the Minister to suggest that if a corporation is prosecuted it means a conviction, that's an entirely different thing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. If he goes to trial.

MR. GARDOM: No. Whether or not the corporation is prosecuted. It says "whether or not the corporation is prosecuted an employee is guilty and a party to the offence." Now that is absolute nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. You won't find anything in the criminal law in this country along this line. What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Your argument to me, doesn't support again what you've got in your bill. Would you like, insofar as this section is concerned, would you be prepared…

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

MR. GARDOM: …to hold the section until you have an opportunity to consider it in legislative council?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have an announcement to make to the House. The Minister of Highways has become a grandfather tonight — 6 lbs. 12 1/2 ozs. and would Anne please find the Minister in the coffee shop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a boy.

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

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, to answer the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. The same or similar provisions appear in federal legislation. What it means is….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's not a mistake and I'll explain it. Give me a chance to explain it to you, because you don't understand clearly what it means.

A director, any officer, employee, agent, of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the commission of the offence, is guilty of the offence whether or not the corporation itself has been charged. This is found all over the place, In other words, the man who is charged, the agent, the employee or whoever, can be charged on an information.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: You always have in the criminal code, my friend, statements that a person who commits rape is guilty of an offence. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a trial, and it's nonsense to suggest that he doesn't have a trial. It's as common…any penalty provision carries that "he is guilty of an offence." It doesn't set out that he shall be tried, he shall be charged and so on. It all comes under the Summary Convictions Act. But in this situation the Crown must prove that the corporation committed an offence; secondly, that the person charged either directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced or participated in the commission of that offence.

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

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 27 pass?

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm interested in section 28(g)(i) where it talks about a supplementary mineral land assessment. I don't know what that is. I don't believe I've come across it yet in the bill. I would like to know, what is a supplementary mineral land assessment? Does this set the guy up for more taxes yet, that are undefined in this bill? What is the supplementary tax roll? What is the whole idea of a supplementary mineral land assessment?

I thought it was already assessed and there was one roll and this fellow here with all the power, the administrator, was the guy who set things up. Now we find the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council setting up a brand new system under the supplementary heading. I'd like to know more about it. It seems like

[ Page 2931 ]

it might be just as high as, if not higher than, the regular tax roll talked about in the earlier sections of the Act.

Mr. Minister, that's on p. 12, section 28(g)(i). It's about 60 per cent of the way down the page.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is perfectly unsatisfactory. What is the supplementary tax roll?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would be for determination by the administrator.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not for the administrator. That's the thing. This is for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's something new that has popped into the Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can't make anything inconsistent with the Act, anyway.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's part of the Act so it can hardly be inconsistent with anything else. It's just that it's something brand new. I'm not suggesting that it's going to destroy the purpose of earlier sections. I'm simply saying that I don't know what a supplementary mineral land assessment is or a supplementary mineral land tax is. It comes up here for the first time, to the best of my knowledge. Before I vote on this section, I'd like to know about it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These are regulations that would be….

MR. McGEER: Do you know what your Act is about?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will not have to do.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'll tell us what's in section 28 prior to the vote, right? O.K. Tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye. (Laughter),

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The nays have it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is great fun but I intend to stand on my feet here until we get some explanation, until we vote on the section.

The point is that we have a brand new mineral land assessment and a brand new mineral land tax under the heading of "supplementary." The whole thing refers to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's powers under the regulation section, O.K.? Section 28 is regulation. Now what in the devil does it mean? I don't know. Apparently the Minister doesn't know. The Premier certainly doesn't know. No one else in this House is able to enlighten me.

If it is something which is new and capable of being a charge upon the owners of mineral land in the province, surely we should have some explanation. I have been looking at this — I've been trying to give the Minister time to find out what this is all about. I've read this Act and I've looked at the powers of the administrator, which are perfectly horrifying. We've looked at the appeal section. The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) discussed that at some length.

We're now on section 28. In the regulation section, here comes a supplementary mineral land assessment and supplementary mineral land taxes. Apparently, these can be put forward by regulation. I would like to know what we're buying here, because we've sure bought an awful lot of things in this session so far that Ministers haven't explained. I'd like to know what's in this. It may be perfectly straightforward. I'm not an expert on mining taxes. But I would hope that the Minister — or perhaps he can send out for some of his advisers….

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order. Is Mel Watkins in the House anywhere? He might be able to help us on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the supplementary mineral land assessment is to make a correction, probably. It may have to be a supplementary assessment roll. You've got supplementaries in the Municipal Act, I believe.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that 28(g)(ii), as opposed to 28(g)(i)….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, that's correcting assessments …

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. I'm talking about that section. You've suggested that (i) and (ii) are the same thing. Why did you put them down

[ Page 2932 ]

separately if they're the same thing? I'm talking about 28(g)(i), not 28(g)(ii). I agree with you, 28(g)(ii) is correcting errors. Section 28(g)(i) is unknown to me and apparently to you and certainly to the Premier.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Surely, we couldn't vote on this section. You've based it on a brand new tax system, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decides to use this system.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is just prescribing procedures to be followed respecting the supplemental mineral land taxes. Then it's the administrator who would decide. This is setting up procedures for that purpose. It's not setting up any new tax roll or anything. We're setting up something for the administrator to act upon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In which case, I think the best thing for us to do at this stage is to delete the word "supplementary" because it hasn't occurred before. It cannot be explained or has not been explained….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've explained it. It's additional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member will write an amendment, we'll dispose of the amendment and then go on to the section. Perhaps it will be passed, perhaps it won't.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is really an astonishing procedure that we're into. I think this is the first time that we've ever had a Minister so completely stumped about his own legislation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: The Premier groans but he's been stumped too. I would just like to make a modest suggestion to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he could equip the Members of the cabinet with walkie-talkies so they could have the legislation explained to them as we move along.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is ready with his amendment. Could you move your amendment, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that in section 28(g)(i) the first word, namely "supplementary" is deleted, so that 28(g)(i) will now read: "prescribing procedures to be followed respecting mineral land assessment and taxes."

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

Amendment negatived.

Sections 28 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: 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. 64, Mineral Land Tax Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 169, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PLACER-MINING ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 169; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

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

MR. CHABOT: Really, I don't know if the whole Act is not redundant. There's a freeze over the placer mining business in British Columbia. Has it been removed? When? By order?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: By order of the Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, well. O.K. Carry on.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 169, An Act to Amend the Placer-mining

[ Page 2933 ]

Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 130, Mr. Speaker.

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

House in committee on Bill No. 130; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 130, An Act to Amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1968, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 152, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 152; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River on section 13.

MR. CHABOT: On section 13, I'm wondering if we could get an interpretation of "officer of a corporation" as to how far down the line you are going in the definition of "officer." Also, to what degree of liability will a contractor be responsible for the failure of a subcontractor on a construction site?

Also, I think there is the possibility that people who are directorship material might hesitate to become directors because of the possibility of a company going bankrupt. The company with 1,000 employees, for instance, might average $700 per month, extending for a two-month period, and could easily be responsible for a payroll on a one-month basis of $700,000. Say a company has seven directors; they each might be equally responsible for the payment of wages of $100,000.

In order to protect these people, I'm wondering whether the new British Columbia Insurance Corporation might give consideration to putting out insurance so that these directors will be protected — not only the directors, but the officers of the company. Just how far do you expect to go down the ladder in the company in your definition of an "office"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, Mr. Chairman, the directors and officers of companies would, of course, only be liable for any wages owing if there were insufficient assets to cover the liability for wages unpaid. Certainly in most circumstances the assets in the kind of corporation that the Member for Columbia River outlines would usually be large enough to satisfy the wage claims that could be generated through non-payment over a two-month period. It would be an unusual situation and usually only in the case of a relatively small company where the assets of the officers might be called upon to satisfy a claim.

MR. CHABOT: There are contractors, I'm sure, that are operating with leased equipment and so forth, and they have very little outside of an office to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Years from now, this House will be in trouble. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: This House is in trouble now. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: The thing is, I'm wondering if you will talk to your colleague here. Sometimes there are difficulties among the Ministers. They don't talk to each other. They have to get communications from some outside advisory board to find out what another Minister is doing. In order to protect some of these directors that might be putting their….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, they might be putting their grandsons on the line. I'm wondering whether there'll be insurance from the British Columbia Insurance Corporation to protect them.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted, I'm just delighted to see the Member for Columbia

[ Page 2934 ]

River advocating the extension of automobile insurance to this kind of liability coverage to corporations.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. Not automobile.

HON. MR. KING: And certainly I think that if they made application, the Minister of Highways would be more than receptive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 13 pass?

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 152, An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 153, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR
EMPLOYMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 153; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if, in connection with section 1 and the definition of "public work," the Minister could clarify once and for all whether or not "agencies of the Crown" includes or does not include municipalities or school districts.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the exemption for school boards, municipal councils and so on are contained in amendments to those Acts rather than to this one, and this has been the case over the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about hospitals?

HON. MR. KING: Pardon?

MR. WILLIAMS: What about hospitals?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I believe there is an amendment to the Hospital Act which provides for an exemption also.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: On section 2, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We speak to the amendment now proposed by the Hon. Minister of Labour to section 2.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the section that deals with the arbitrary decision of this legislation in which people must become a party to a collective agreement, where workers must be unionized in order to be employed by the government.

This is the section in which there is no longer any free choice on the part of workers to decide whether they want to be union members or non-union members. The free choice is out the window if you're going to work on a government contract.

If workers opt not to belong to a union, of course, you are in effect penalizing the employer. If the workers decide that they don't want to belong to a union it, in effect, says that the employer cannot participate in a government project or a government contract.

You're saying in effect that the employer, if he wants to enjoy the benefits of bidding on government contracts, must fire his workers that don't want to be union members. They must be fired if he's ever to get a contract with the government.

I think that there was nothing seriously wrong with the old Act. If there were any complaints, all it really required was a matter of enforcement. It had the necessary provisions to ensure that the workers were not taken advantage of as far as wages were concerned.

It's my belief that anyone who pays taxes in British Columbia should have the right to bid on government contracts without being forced to have a

[ Page 2935 ]

union shop in his company. In effect, what you're doing with this section, in many instances, is increasing the cost of government projects in various areas of the province. Not only are you increasing costs, you're denying certain small contractors in some of the more rural parts of the province the right to participate in government contracts. I don't subscribe to that kind of a philosophy.

However, it appears that this government is willing to pay the price of additional costs for the purpose of enforcing union membership to all workers who might work on a government contract. Really this section is big-union legislation — king-of-the-union legislation. It's not the type of legislation that I support. It's not the type of legislation that we should be discussing in a free society such as we have enjoyed in the past in British Columbia.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I expressed this party's opposition to this type of restrictive discriminatory legislation, ironically and erroneously called the Public Works Fair Employment Act, at an earlier time during the second reading.

I see that the point I objected to then has not been amended, despite the amendment we accepted a moment ago. We feel it is most unfortunate that there be a substantial restriction upon the contractors and employees capable of taking advantage of government work.

We have no quarrel with the government if it wishes to improve working conditions for those contractors contracting with the government. That's fair enough, as I said at that time. But to insist upon union contracts, in our view, would mean that more than 50 per cent of the employees of this province would be barred from benefiting directly or indirectly from government contracts.

Of course the figure is not identical for public works contracts with construction companies, but the principle remains the same. Those who pay taxes to the government do so honestly. Those who obey the law should have the right to deal with the government. I'm glad the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in the room because I've often referred to him in the context of this principle.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment to this section. I move it because this government has announced that they expect the civil service to be the model employer of the Province of British Columbia. That's a plausible objective. If it is to become the model employer of the Province of British Columbia, I see no reason for anyone to object if any contractor working for the government pays the same wages and provides the same working conditions as the model employer of British Columbia, namely the British Columbia government.

Therefore, my amendment in subsection 2(b) — are you with me? About two-thirds of the way down the page, where it says: "the person with whom the contract is entered into has entered into a collective agreement with those employees of his who are employed to do the work." I would delete all words after the word "into," thus leaving "the person with whom the contract is entered into" and I would substitute the following: "pays wages and provides working conditions equivalent to or better than the wages and working conditions of the civil service for those doing comparable work." I have it here.

I cannot see how this can meet with any criticism by the government. We appreciate their desire to make sure that people who contract for government work treat their employees reasonably and decently. All of us of all parties subscribe to that principle. But there is no need for restrictions which prohibit more than 50 per cent of the working people of this province from benefiting from contracts with the government. That is what the Act as unamended would do.

We say instead, set the civil service up as the government intends to set it up — as the model employer in the Province of British Columbia. At the same time, anybody who contracts with the government has to use the civil service of the Province of British Columbia as the standard against which they must judge and be judged for both working conditions and wages This achieves the objective which we are told was in the mind of the government, namely fair treatment of employees in the Province of British Columbia. At the same time it re-emphasizes the government's desire to make the civil service the model employer in the Province of British Columbia. As the third point, it gets away from discriminatory, restrictive legislation which denies the right to deal with their own government to more than 50 per cent of the employees of the province.

MR. CHABOT: Fifty-eight per cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fifty-eight per cent. I am corrected.

If we can trust the government's own words about its intentions towards the civil service, this amendment can only be accepted by the government. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that amendment at this time.

[ Page 2936 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Under the previous legislation, the Minister of Labour had the power arbitrarily to fix the wages of those people contracting with the government to do work. Our philosophy indicates that a more acceptable way of the employees achieving a fairer standard of wages and working conditions is through the collective bargaining process. Indeed, that's the whole concept behind the move to provide free collective bargaining for the civil servants.

For the Second Member for Victoria to suggest that we should use the rates and conditions negotiated by the civil servants as a model elsewhere would be a whole negation, I think, of the underlying reason that we are providing collective bargaining rights to the civil service. This is so that they can, of their own volition and of their own initiative, in equality with their employer, negotiate their own wages and conditions. To deprive the rest of the private sector who are in contract with the government, of the same opportunity would be discriminatory in the extreme, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

It reveals to me the whole concept of the opposition that we're excluding people. It reveals an underlying misunderstanding and discriminatory attitude to the working people of this province. I believe that if those people knew anything about the trade union movement and the workaday world out there, they'd understand how many contracting company unions particularly are applying for certifications and how very, very difficult it is to obtain certification in the construction industry.

The record belies the proposition that they don't want union organization. Indeed they do. I think it's admirable to provide assistance to them in that worthy function, so that they can indeed deal freely and collectively with their employer. I certainly oppose the amendment put forward, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, seldom have I heard such complete and utter hogwash from a Minister of the Crown. He's directly discriminating against 58 per cent of the labour force in British Columbia.

HON. MR. KING: The assumption is, then, that people don't want to belong to a union, eh?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the assumption must be that a person is free to join a union if he so desires, without the arm-twisting of the Minister of Labour and the provincial Government of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get into medicine?

MR. McGEER: When the provincial government, working in league with the B.C. Federation of Labour, tries to hold a club over the working people of British Columbia, it would be wrong if clear-minded Members of this Legislature did not stand up in defence of those who do not wish this discrimination forced upon them.

Let it be remembered once more, Mr. Chairman, that even in the matter of union membership in British Columbia there is not freedom. If people in this province wish to join a Canadian union, they are discriminated against…

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

MR. McGEER: …by the legislation of the province…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Would you confine your remarks to the section before us?

MR. McGEER: …by the regulations which are promulgated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by the actions of the Labour Relations Board …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the bill before us and the amendment before us.

Could you turn on the mike, please?

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Hon. Member that when I want to make a point, would he mind stop talking? That's the reason I turned off your mike. You may proceed. Would you confine your remarks to the amendment before us?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, do you push the buttons around this place? (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member refuses to accede to the chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was struggling very hard to hear what was going on. I was trying as best I could to make my point in the face of hostile glances from the government side.

Mr. Chairman, if I could make the point with the microphone on, the leader of the Liberal Party has made the most valid point of the session in asking for equality of all citizens of British Columbia. If ever there should be a place where fair treatment and equality are practised, it should be by this Legislative Assembly and by the government itself. But what

[ Page 2937 ]

section 2 does is eliminate all possibility of work for the provincial government by 58 per cent of the working people of the province.

What the amendment provided for by the leader of the Liberal Party does is restore this equality. Yet the Minister of Labour stood up and gave us complete and utter hogwash and nonsense. Mr. Chairman, when the vote comes on this amendment, I would ask you to listen very carefully out of the left ear as well as the right ear. I'm sure that the voices on this side of the House will carry this amendment for freedom and fair play in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've been moved by that speech. When the freedom bell rings in this House, one must really contemplate what has been going on in the civil service all these years.

Do you know that we have been restricted to hiring doctors who have a closed shop through the College of Physicians and Surgeons all these years? Do you know that we couldn't hire a lawyer unless he'd been to the Bar? Which bar? (Laughter).

Now we know where that Member stands. He belongs to the closed shop of the closed shop — the medical profession that limits who can belong to that group. Listen to who's talking about the freedom bell tonight. They've closed the civil service. They've closed the hospitals. They've closed the general practice. Unless you've passed that hallowed group — the College of Physicians and Surgeons….If he believed what he said about hogwash tonight, where's his private bill opening the College of Physicians and Surgeons? Is it on the order paper? Oh, no way. Oh, that's different. Don't mess with that freedom bell.

Then there's the bar association. Oh, yes, the lawyers stand up and say, "We're against this closed shop. You can't order men to be union men." But try to go into court without a rented wig. Oh, oh. You've even got to get your dusting powder from the right bar. Who do you think you're kidding?

Those kinds of privileges have been reserved for the wealthy and the privileged, who have always taken advantage of a closed shop for the protection of their profession. But when it comes to the ordinary working person — no, no, no. Who's trying to kid who about hogwash with all their mumbo-jumbo at the College of Physicians and Surgeons? We've heard it tonight and we haven't seen it on the order paper.

Why shouldn't the ordinary man of this province be protected by a union contract, the right to fellowship, the right to collective bargaining, just like the professions have? That's why I support this bill.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it's always rather interesting when the Premier gets carried away by his own oratory. I hope you'll grant me the same latitude to stray from the amendment as was granted to the Premier.

I'm really disappointed that the Premier is politicking in this way tonight. He knows that the College of Physicians and Surgeons exists to protect the public, not to protect the doctors.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: No, that's a fact. There's no point in making smart remarks, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons exists under the Medical Act and its official function is to license doctors to protect the public. A doctor has to prove that he has the requisite training and qualifications to be able to function in society. The Act and the whole purpose of the college is to protect the public in having adequately and properly trained, competent doctors.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Now, if you'll allow me to finish, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Comparing apples and oranges, let me hastily say that the B.C. Medical Association, to which membership is voluntary, negotiates with the government regarding fees and the conditions under which the doctor works. To suggest to the public of British Columbia that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has anything whatever to do with our conditions of work or our fees….

The College of Physicians and Surgeons, under the Medical Act — and the Premier knows this very well and I've mentioned this in the House before. The protection which is involved by the College is the protection of every citizen in this province to be sure that doctors are adequately trained and competent and obeying the laws of this land. It is a legal Act. It is an Act which has the full power of this legislation.

If the Premier is unhappy, Mr. Chairman, all he has to do is change the ballgame by legislation and license doctors by the government…. No, no, you can't have it both ways, Mr. Premier.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm giving the workers the same privilege. The questions of fees and conditions of work has nothing whatever to do with the College — nothing.

[ Page 2938 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No you don't. Mr. Chairman, may I again make this very plain. Since the College issues licences, it is the only source of a licence, for the reason I've mentioned, Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: That is completely false, Mr. Chairman. The membership in the B.C. Medical Association, which governs the bargaining with the government, is voluntary. There are many doctors in this province….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't belong without being a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, because you need a licence.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: This is a very important point, Mr. Chairman. There's a vital piece of information misrepresented by the Premier in this House. It is a fact that if a doctor is legally licensed by the College, he does not have to be a member of the association. It's a fact.

Anyway, having cleared that point up, I feel that you've granted me latitude to refute the Premier's statement and I appreciate it. Therefore, because we also believe in free choice, I support the amendment of the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). He's trying to achieve two ends. He's trying to preserve the freedom of an individual to choose whether or not he should be in a union. At the same time, he's giving the government the right to say that anyone seeking to do business with the government should at least pay the same wages and provide the same conditions or work as a union worker providing the same kind of service.

I feel that this is not unreasonable, particularly when we have such a substantial number of the workers of this province non-unionized.

I accept the 58 per cent. I accept the idea that if workers feel that they do better by being unionized, they should be given every freedom to choose and to be certified. The Minister says they have difficulty in becoming certified. Perhaps he can explain why there is that difficulty.

He said in an answer earlier on, Mr. Chairman, that it would surprise the opposition to learn that many people in the construction industry have difficulty becoming certified, and that puzzles me if the advantages claimed by the government are said to be so substantial and so attractive.

But it is a principle that we believe in. This again, I suppose, is what separates your side of the House from ours. We believe that freedom of choice is a very important thing to the individual. And you might even think that those individuals who choose to stay out of union arrangements are stupid. Well, we've all got the right to be stupid — some of us wouldn't be here if….

HON. MR. COCKE: You've got freedom of choice.

MR. WALLACE: But, what do you mean is wrong with that stuff? Doesn't freedom of choice mean anything to you?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, but, they've got freedom of choice.

MR. WALLACE: They no longer have freedom of choice to enter into contracts unless they are a member of a union. Now if you choose not to be unionized, you're being penalized because you can't compete for contracts. Is that not….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, dear. Mr. Chairman, I think that we needn't go back over the college business. That is on the record and is not debatable. But the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says that they have freedom of choice. Now I can't put these two facts together. If you insist that they're unionized and if they choose not to be unionized, they're then being penalized. Why should you not be able to compete for a contract because you happen to be choosing to be non-unionized?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Government contract? It doesn't really matter. The whole question is how you live within the law and how you practise according to what you think is fair. Because my view differs from yours, surely we should not be penalized if we are both within the law in our views and our practices.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Then surely, Mr. Chairman, even if our philosophies differ, we are saying in effect in this amendment that provided the bidding employer, unionized or otherwise, provides the same level of wages and the same conditions of work as those that are unionized, the bargain or the return to the

[ Page 2939 ]

workman, whether he is unionized or otherwise, is the same. I feel that this is an eminently reasonable suggestion which prevents a person being penalized because of his choice, and at the same time the government will be paying exactly the same wages.

I really feel that that is quite a reasonable approach the opposition is taking, but I am really disappointed that the Minister of Health should interject a comment that of course they still do have freedom of choice. Sure they do, but they are certainly penalized if they make that choice to remain non-unionized. To me the issue is very simple.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support this amendment. It is obvious that the Premier in his remarks has not considered the implications of the amendment, or perhaps he has and that is why he spoke beside the matter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King's) philosophical point of view has beclouded his vision of what is right in this province.

We have enshrined in the laws of this province the right of employees to be unionized, and that carries with it the right of employees not to be unionized. But in this legislation the Minister is attempting to say that if you exercise that choice against belonging to a union, you are forever precluded from working on a contract with the government of this province. And that is a philosophical point of view which is contrary to intellect and logic.

All that this amendment offers, Mr. Chairman, is that whoever contracts with the Crown or any of its agencies — whoever contracts, whether they be unionized or not, must pay wages and offer working conditions to their employees equal to, or better than, those which the government offers to its own employees who are in the public service.

So that when contracts are let by the government of this province, the employees of those contracts working side by side with members of the public service, will be paid at least as well as those employees in the public service.

With the high standards that we expect this government will establish for wages and working conditions of employees in the public service, that will be the guide and the only guide for those who do contract with the Crown, leaving always to those employees the right of choice, which is enshrined in the law, to select the union of their choice or not to select, as the case may be.

What could be fairer than that? You have the freedom of choice, ensuring that there is equality of wages and working conditions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Well, Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to restrain myself this evening, but I'm afraid the comments of the Premier have stung me into making some comment on this amendment.

I'm neither a doctor nor a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, but I'm shocked that the Premier of British Columbia, the Leader of this House and the leader of British Columbia should so mix up the issues and try to confuse the people of this province as he has in his comments tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. BROUSSON: The lawyers and the doctors can look after themselves, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted the opportunity to say a few words. They are the first words I've tried to say this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will you please observe standing order 17(2) and not interrupt the Member while he is speaking.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say a few words, not for the mixed-up issues that the Premier has introduced, but for the people about whom this bill is being written and to whom this bill and the amendments are directed.

I'm a businessman and an employer, Mr. Chairman. I very much respect the rights of the worker in the construction industry or any other part of the industry of British Columbia to organize themselves. I also respect the rights of those same people to choose not to organize if they so desire. I believe in the payment of fair wages and the provision of fair and proper working conditions for those people. And it's those wages and working conditions that it's all about. That's where it's at.

I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, in setting up the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) as the biggest union organizer of them all, with the biggest club of any union in British Columbia.

This government is becoming the voice of big labour in British Columbia. This is a sad day for this province when the Minister of Labour becomes the business agent for organized labour in British Columbia.

[ Page 2940 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the remarks are rather interesting…the biggest organizer and negotiator….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Indeed, what the Member is advocating, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Labour retain, as was provided under the previous legislation, the power to arbitrarily set rates of wages and working conditions in the construction industry with any contractor who had a contract with the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he never complained about it once.

HON. MR. KING: So what are we saying, Mr. Chairman? We are saying here that the opposition takes the point of view that collective bargaining should not be the method by which workers set their relationship with the employer, but rather that it should be arbitrarily set by the Minister of Labour.

Now look, Mr. Chairman, that little group over there provokes me just a little bit. Every time they start to take their licks they cry "foul", but when they get any heckling from this side — "Could we please have some respect?" they cry to the Chairman. Now would you try and constrain yourselves a little bit longer.

I really don't think you have too much rapport or relationship with the working people of this province. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the facts of the matter are that the difficulties in organizing and gaining certification in the construction industry are indeed very, very difficult. The number of unfair labour practices charges that are laid and go through the Department of Labour by far have their heaviest preponderance in the construction industry.

There are many organizations that hire through one organization and actually do their business and their corporate manipulations through another, so that when the workers come to make an application for certification, they find that the company that actually hired the workers was simply a front organization and the payroll is soon transferred. It's a very, very difficult thing, so to put forward the proposition that it's as simple as making application for certification just reveals your total ignorance of the difficulty working people have organizing.

Mr. Chairman, the other point of view that provokes me is this totally altruistic attitude on the other side that the working people of British Columbia basically do not want to organize.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KING: Well, this is the point of view you're taking. You're saying, "Set the standards of wages arbitrarily, through power of the Ministry, rather than letting them bargain collectively with their employer." On the one hand, Mr. Chairman, we have them criticizing every Minister on this side for taking unto himself sweeping powers, and here they are tonight advocating that I be the power in the province that sets the wages of people in industry. I just don't buy it, Mr. Chairman.

I make no apologies whatsoever for putting forward the point of view that we will patronize those industries that treat their workers fairly and are prepared to bargain collectively with them to achieve a fair standard of wages and conditions.

I think we should just make the point additionally — Mr. Chairman, what of that free enterprise group over there? Do you not believe in a competitive basis on which the companies should compete for government contracts?

MR. BROUSSON: But you're saying "organize or else."

HON. MR. KING: How are we to expect one company paying a union wage scale and all the fringe benefits to compete equally with a company that's paying a substandard wage scale?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KING: The civil service has nothing to do with it. Indeed, if we took your point of view, we would never grant collective bargaining rights to the civil service at all. We thoroughly reject that point of view. Certainly it's a philosophical difference, Mr. Chairman, and I say, "Vive la difference."

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I better read the amendment again, because everything that has been said by the Minister and Premier has been simply, to quote another Chinese expression, "wind past the ear." It's irrelevant to the debate tonight. The amendment reads this way, section 2(2)(b) — two-thirds of the way down the page: "the person with whom the contract is entered into pays and provides working conditions equal to or better than the wages and working conditions of the civil service in comparable work."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that comes under

[ Page 2941 ]

the working conditions, I would assume, but we can add it in. Would you like that added in?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Look, the Minister claims that this would give him all sorts of power. Surely, if we're going to have a unionized civil service with collective bargaining, which apparently is the objective of the government, this type of thing will be discussed between government, on the employer's side, and the civil service on the employee's side. Surely we can use that standard.

Does this government really intend to become the model employer of British Columbia? They've stated they do. Well, if that is the case, what is wrong with using that as a standard, the standard of the model employer in British Columbia, as the absolute floor below which nothing can go? My amendment states that they shall be "equal to or better than." It's easy for the Minister to make completely irrelevant remarks about the organizing and him having the power to control, but it's not that. We're setting a standard here and that's why I've written it into amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The standard is that of the civil service.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Patronizing? Oh, really. We've heard a lot about patronage tonight, Mr. Attorney General, from members of your party and the Minister of Labour in particular.

What I am saying is this — listen to the words of the amendment again, realize it is not a question of allowing anybody to pay any rate or to have any working conditions whatsoever. It's the question of them meeting the standard of the employer that the government itself has said will be the model employer in British Columbia. They meet that or do better than that and if they can do that, they can do government work.

Now, this provides for the guaranteed protection of the employee, about which we've heard quite a bit tonight. At the same time, it protects a very, very important principle and that is that those who pay taxes to the government, those who obey the law, those who act honestly as citizens of this province have a right to deal with their own government, And that, by golly, must be something which really is an important principle. If we are to deny them the right of dealing with their government….

HON. MR. KING: You're presuming they don't want to join the union.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They can join the union, but they don't have to. What I am saying is that they may or they may not. It's not up to the government to force them into unionization.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unionize or else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What it's up to is the employees themselves. It's up to them to decide what they want — not up to me, not up to him or not up to anyone in front of me here. We're not here to decide whether they do or whether they do not join. We are saying as the Government of British Columbia that we have certain standards for our contracts, and these are to be those of the model employer in British Columbia, namely the civil service.

I know we're on the right track when the Premier raises his voice, shouts and waves his arms, as he was doing. He shakes, he twists, he shakes his jowls and he acts just as his predecessor used to act. He attacks the medical profession, which is a standard procedure of his predecessor, and he goes and does this simply to divert attention from the merits of the principle we are attempting to put forward, the merits of the amendment we are trying to put forward.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another thing he always does is interrupt constantly. We're delighted to find that he's doing it today because he does this every time we're right, and he's been doing it very frequently recently.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've got here an important principle which is being laughed off by the Premier and by the Minister. The fact is that we cannot in this House, in my view, pass a bill such as this which denies to more than 50 per cent of the employees of the province the right to have their companies deal with the government and therefore to have them receive indirectly a pay cheque from the government.

It simply isn't right to deny it to that many people in this province. It would be wrong to deny it to a minority. It certainly must be wrong to deny it to a majority. It's wrong to deny them, when they are honest, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, the right to deal with their own government.

Now, Mr. Premier, you can laugh, you can shake, you can do what you like and wave your arms, but

[ Page 2942 ]

you are still the Premier of all the people of the province. That's regardless of whether they voted for you or not. You have a responsibility to all of them.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps it's too late to put rational points before the government. We are not insisting on unionization and we are not insisting on a non-union shop. We are having no part of taking sides on that, because as the Minister says, sometimes there are difficulties getting certification. All that we ask is that the standards of the model employer in British Columbia become the floor and the person who deals with the government must pay that or better than that, must provide those working conditions or better than those working conditions.

That's all this amendment says and it's a proper amendment to protect the citizens of British Columbia in dealing with their government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate with considerable interest, but with not much amazement, because I have become used to hearing from the people across the way a measurement of every action on a basis of materialistic concept. I have listened to them say that if an employer pays the same wages, that if he gives the same measurable working conditions, then he should have the same rights as an employer who happens to have negotiated an agreement with a trade union.

It's obvious that none of you people have ever really spent a major part of your life working in an industry or working in a plant, because the measure of a man's freedom in not encompassed in whether or not he can work for the government or not. The measure of a man's freedom in industry today is determined by whether or not he belongs to a group who stands together under a collective agreement.

Let me tell you that without a collective agreement a man stands alone. He has no seniority rights; he has no grievance procedure; the employer can dismiss him any time he pleases, if he happens to think his hair is too long, if he happens to dislike his personal behaviour off the job. It doesn't matter a darn, if he happens to dislike his politics….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is so.

MR. BROUSSON: You don't know where it's at anymore.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I happen to live in a neighbourhood where my neighbours all work in plants. I don't live in a ghetto in West Vancouver. I don't live in a ghetto in Oak Bay or Point Grey.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is designed to encourage the recognition within this province.

MR. BROUSSON: It doesn't encourage, it forces.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It doesn't force. A man has a choice when he applies for a job with an employer, If that employer is unionized and that man doesn't like trade unions, he doesn't have to go to work for that employer.

Now what this does is put a pressure on the employer — not on the worker — to recognize that the workers have a right to organize.

MR. WILLIAMS: How can he stop them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How can he stop them? There are a thousand ways to stop them between the time a group of workers starts to organize and the time they get a vote. That's the history of the trade union movement in this province and that's why the trade union membership in this province as a percentage of the work force has gone down from 53 per cent 10 years ago to 43 per cent of the work force today.

I suggest to you that any government that believes that the workers can have more freedom collectively than they can individually, recognizes the true operation of this "jungle" society that you people support, and they will support this particular legislation.

We have principles. We have beliefs. You have your beliefs. You like the jungle; you're prepared to perpetuate the jungle, We happen to believe that the workers of this province should have every incentive and every help to organize collectively.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. I'll be very happy when the workers of British Columbia attain the civilized standards of the workers of other countries such as Sweden, where about 95 to 98 per cent of the workers — not just the doctors or the lawyers — are organized in the trade unions; where they have surpassed the standard of living of the workers of Canada; where they have much less labour strife and labour-management differences than we have in Canada because of the fact that they're organized into trade unions.

I make no apologies for being part of a government that draws a clear line….

[ Page 2943 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Get up-to-date? Look, you came out of the Victorian age. That's where you came from. The paternalistic employer patting the good boy on the head. That's what you want.

We're a civilized, progressive government recognizing that workers organized will have the right to speak their minds, will have the right to take a position without fear of retribution from an employer. We're simply encouraging the employers of the province to recognize trade unions and recognize the attitudes of this government.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's quite obvious to me that that Minister doesn't really understand that there are people who don't really want to belong to trade unions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They don't have to.

MR. CHABOT: Don't you think they should have the right to decide…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR.CHABOT: …the right of free choice…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR.CHABOT: …to decide whether to belong to a trade union or not?

I want to say that the workers in British Columbia have opted to a greater extent to belong to trade unions than any other area in the North American continent. There's no other area on the North American continent where you have the union membership you have in British Columbia. And what's wrong with that? It's quite possible for people to participate and it's quite possible for organization to take place.

I listened to the Minister talk about difficulties in obtaining certification, talking about unfair labour practices. I'll tell you about some unfair labour practices.

I'm surprised to see that Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stand here tonight and talk about the unfair labour practices and the right of the workers to be organized and so forth, with the kind of discrimination he brought against some organized workers not too long ago. You'd better believe it.

You sent a telegram to Murray Sales on March 28 dealing with the cancellation of a contract of Mac's Donuts supplying doughnuts through their agent….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I cancelled no contract.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, you told him the contract would be all over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: And the only reason you did it…okay, throw my switch. It's the old attitude for me, but the attitude for all those Ministers, the Premier — he can attack the medical profession, he can attack the legal profession, but when I get up and talk about discrimination in the work place by that government you cut my switch, Mr. Chairman, you cut my switch.

No, just because a small union has been certified it is recognized as a union by the Labour Relations Board, the Christian Labour Association of Canada — along with the B.C. Federation of Labour you're out to destroy them. You'd better believe you are.

You're a party to the attempted destruction of the little union in British Columbia because they don't suit your purpose or the purpose of the B.C. Federation of Labour. You're an international union government, that's what you are. You're against Canadian unions. You have no respect for the right of the workers to belong to the union of their choice, be it Canadian or international. You feel that he must belong to a union which the B.C. Federation of Labour supports.

And I'll tell you that's not freedom of choice. It certainly isn't. You're out to break Mac's Donuts because the Vancouver Labour Council — certainly you're attempting…you can laugh all you want if you think it's funny. You're canceling his contract because his workers have decided….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't cancel it.

MR. CHABOT: You cancelled it. Absolutely. March 31. "I let it lapse. I didn't cancel it." It's just a slight deviation in the terminology. You're out against them because the Vancouver Labour Council and the B.C. Federation of Labour told you, "Break those people. Break 'em. We got to get the other union in there. We don't want CLAC. We want to put them on the run in British Columbia." And you're supporting them tonight and you have supported them. Talk about freedom of choice. You've got no respect for freedom of choice.

I want to say as well that if you people are talking about difficulty in certification in the construction industry, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you where the

[ Page 2944 ]

great problem rests. It rests with the building trades council, that unless you belong to a select international union it doesn't matter who you're certified with. You'll never get on the job site in British Columbia. That's where the problem is.

I want to tell you if you want to eliminate discrimination in British Columbia, do something about this closed society of the building trades council in British Columbia which is internationally-oriented and give the workers of this province the right to belong to the unions of their choice. That doesn't exist today in construction in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 32

PAIRED

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we've had quite a lively debate on the point of principle raised by section 2 and the Liberal leader's amendment to that section. We don't agree with the Minister of Labour but I must say that he kept on the point and that with him we've been discussing the merits or demerits of the problem of only union people being qualified to do a government job.

Mr. Chairman, I can't say the same for the Premier. I think his peculiar bigotry inflamed a number of Members of the House. I certainly support what the Member for Oak Bay said. He was right on in his remarks….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, we've allowed a certain amount of latitude in the debate. I would ask you to keep your remarks to the amendment if possible.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if I may, even if it has to be on a matter of personal privilege. You see, Mr. Chairman, I'm a member of the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons. I have to belong to that organization to be licensed to practise medicine in British Columbia. I am not, Mr. Chairman, a member of the B.C. Medical Association. That is the bargaining agent. I am not required to belong to that in order to practise medicine. I do not belong to it out of choice because, Mr. Chairman, I would not want to be accused in this House of being a member of an organization that has to lobby with the government for fees. That's precisely the reason why I resigned from the B.C. Medical Association.

I only make that point because the Premier was quite out of bounds in the remarks that he made. I regret the kind of reverse bigotry that was displayed by him — just as I regret, Mr. Chairman, the kind of bigotry that was revealed by the Minister of Highways.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano doesn't live in a ghetto…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We would ask the Hon. Member to return to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: …and I would think that the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, as I do…. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Highways referred to the fact that I lived in a ghetto in Point Grey. Mr. Chairman, I don't appreciate that kind of remark because it smacks of prejudice. It smacks of bigotry. It's out of place for a Minister of the Crown. It's irrelevant to the debate and I think that it just demeans the House and the legislative process to have those kind of remarks coming forward in a debate which at the beginning, until the Premier pitched in, had a certain degree of merit to it.

The Premier groans now, Mr. Chairman, but I really think that if anything was displayed by his remarks this evening, it would be the appropriateness for the good of the public to license social workers in British Columbia.

Now, having made that point — and it's only to bring his remarks into perspective — I would like to return to some of the comments made by the Minister of Labour. With due respect to him, we

[ Page 2945 ]

understand the point of view that he's bringing forward and we happen to disagree with it. Mr. Chairman, I think he's taking an elephant gun to this particular problem. I'd like to raise one or two questions with the Minister for his serious consideration.

What do we do, Mr. Chairman, if this section 2 passes and the government defeats the amendment put forward by the Liberal leader? What do we do with an organization that may have certified union electricians doing some of the work but non-union secretarial staff? Is that firm disqualified because some of the people working for that firm are not unionized? If one takes section 2 literally, such an organization would be disbarred.

What do we do, Mr. Chairman, if we're in the Town of Revelstoke and a particular job is required for some public building or some government property up there, one of the agencies of the government, and there happens to be a contractor who works by himself. I know some in that area. Is that local resident to be denied the opportunity in favour of someone from the labour temple on East Broadway recommended by Ray Haynes?

Quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, this kind of situation can arise. There are the small family operations that really exist in the rural areas and must exist in that fashion for survival. There are firms where some of the staff is organized but where the office staff, for good and legitimate reasons, may not be organized. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that if we were to sit and think of situations which the Minister of Labour is bound to be faced with in the coming months, if he insists on this tunnel-minded approach….

HON. MR. KING: You haven't read the Act.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have read the bill and the Act. I also happen to have read some of the submissions that have been made to the Minister, which I wish he had read. If he had, I think that he would take a far more understanding view of the quite sincere efforts on the part of people on this side of the House to point out to him the loopholes in his own legislation.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) has raised a number of points which I happen to believe are valid, with regard to internecine union warfare in British Columbia. There's no question as to who holds the whip hand in the labour movement as far as the government is concerned. This is the B.C. Federation of Labour and the big international unions.

You can go ahead and laugh about Max's Donuts and in some ways it's comical. In other ways it's tragic. Mr. Chairman, we would just appeal once more. Let's get away from the rather low level of debate which the Premier introduced and consider this amendment and the legislation on its merits. Again, we ask the Minister of Labour to think over carefully all of the situations that are going to occur if this rather rigid directive is enacted into law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In all fairness, I don't think the opposition appreciate just how hard it is to form a union, get certified and get that union agreement. We're providing an incentive to help give them a bit of industrial democracy in this bill.

I remember a case where…this is just one case and the Minister of Labour shouldn't laugh. It happened while he was the Minister. A big road contractor gets the contract from the government. He sublets part of the work here to company A, part of the work to company B. The workers try to form their union. They apply for certification. A month goes by — two months. They finally get their certification. They begin to bargain for a contract. This is the third month and they are just about to bargain for a contract and be able to get a strike vote, and the work at that company is wound up and the work transferred to another company. And they have to start all over again.

But the examples are infinite. We ought to give an incentive to people to have a little bit of industrial democracy for themselves on the job. And Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move the House at its rising to stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's now midnight.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not midnight yet.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INFANTS ACT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, on April 12, the Members sitting in committee of the whole, considered Bill No. 37, An Act To Amend The Infants Act, and the bill, following the committee

[ Page 2946 ]

was reported to the House complete with amendments.

I have been advised that amendments which were moved on that day removed words which might better have been left in the bill, and therefore I ask leave of the House to move that Bill No. 37, on report, be recommitted.

MR. SPEAKER: Recommitted to the committee of the whole House?

MR. WILLIAMS: Recommitted to the committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that agreed?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 00:02 a.m.