[ Page 745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Water supply for Point Roberts. Mr. Chabot — 745

Education costs. Mr. Wallace — 745

Lakelse Hot Spring Resort. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 745

Alexis Macdonald. Mr. Williams — 745

Milk production costs. Mr. Curtis — 746

Purchase of Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 746

BCR strike. Mr. Phillips — 746

Details of accident on Hope-Princeton Highway. Hon. Mr. Lea — 747

Government involvement in plus-minus pollution control. Mr. McClelland — 747

Provincial cost-sharing in Vancouver fast bus service. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 747

B.C. energy crisis. Mr. Smith — 748

Truck loggers' stumpage formula. Mr. Wallace — 748

Domestic Animal Protection Act (Bill 45). Committee stage.

Mr. Phillips — 748

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 749

Ms. Sanford — 749

Mr. Williams — 749

Mr. Phillips — 750

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 750

Report and third reading — 750

Livestock Production Act (Bill 46). Committee stage.

Mr. Phillips — 750

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 750

Report and third reading — 751

An Act to Amend the Distressed Area Assistance Act (Bill 67).

Committee, report and third reading — 751

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 752

Mr. Phillips — 752

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 753

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 753

Mr. Wallace — 754

Mr. Rolston — 755

Mr. Williams — 755

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 756

Weed Control Act (Bill 71). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 758

Mr. Phillips — 759

Mr. Steves — 759

Mr. Williams — 760

Mr. McGeer — 760

Mr. Smith — 761

Mr. Gardom — 762

Mr. Lewis — 763

Ms. Sanford — 763

Ms. Brown — 763

Mr. Wallace — 764

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 764

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 765

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act (Bill 24).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act (Bill 29).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

Personal Information Reporting Act (Bill 63). Committee, report and third reading — 768

An Act to Amend the Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill 21).

Committee, report and third reading — 768

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Settlement Act (Bill 22).

Committee, report and third reading — 769

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Bill 23).

Committee, report and third reading — 769

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act (Bill 25). Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 769

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 769

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 770

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 770

Report and third reading — 770

Sessional Reports Suspension Act (Bill 20). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 770

Hon. Mr. Hall — 770

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 771

Hon. Mr. Hall — 771

Report and third reading — 771

British Columbia Auditor General (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 771

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 772

Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill 27). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 772

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 772

The Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1973 (Bill 33). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 773

Hon. Mr. Levi — 773

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 774

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 35). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 775

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 776

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 776

An Act to Amend the Factories Act (Bill 78). Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 776

Credit Information Protection Act (Bill 6). Mr. McGeer.

Withdrawal — 776

Statement. Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Speaker — 776

Mr. Gardom — 777

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 778

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 778

Mr. Speaker — 779

Mr. Williams — 779

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 779

Appendix Report of Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries — 780

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1973

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker I would ask the House to welcome a guest who will be with us again tomorrow, a distinguished visitor from our neighbouring state, Governor Dan Evans and Mrs. Evans and their accompanying party.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that I apologize for not having had given you proper warning, but the Governor and the Majority Leader of his House are very interested in the question period; that's why they've come at this time.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of grade 11 students from Kitsilano Secondary School who are sitting in the gallery with their teacher Mr. Ippen.

Oral questions.

WATER SUPPLY FOR
POINT ROBERTS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier a question: does the government have any plans to supply water to Point Roberts in continuing and sufficient quantities to look after the needs of this parched community. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for that question. I'm glad you asked that. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, since the advent of normal rainfall in the northwest — it's returned to normal rainfall — the pressure around this question is not as great. Discussions are continuing.

EDUCATION COSTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, might I ask the lady Minister of Education if the comments made by the single, all-powerful commissioner into education that schools are fading away represents the government's policy to save the costs of education?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, it does not represent the government's policy. And I do not think the term "all-powerful" is really applicable to the commissioner. I think he's doing his duty as commissioner of a new type of commission in getting out around the Province of British Columbia and getting people to think about education. I think that is what he's doing very successfully.

LAKELSE HOT SPRINGS RESORT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question on the Lakelse Hot Springs Resort from the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). In answer to his question whether or not the health department closed that resort: the owner closed voluntarily on April 11, after a warning from the health unit in the area about the condition of the water in his pool. He opened one week before without obtaining a permit to operate, as required under the regulations now. The pool re-opened on June 14, and closed again voluntarily at the end of September. I don't really think there's that much swimming up there, but we cannot permit a pool to be opened if it's not meeting the health requirements. That's the answer to the question.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question to the Minister: is it the intention of the Government of the Province of British Columbia to take over or purchase the Lakelse Hot Springs Resort for any purpose?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's asking policy. But I don't know of any discussion that we've had in that regard whatsoever.

We have had a great deal of trouble up there. I didn't want to go too much further, but we've also had sewage trouble in the area — dumping of sewage into the stream, lake; I think the Member knows all of the problems. But it's purely a matter between the health department and the owners of this hot spring resort.

ALEXIS MACDONALD

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour: as we are embarking upon a new direction in labour-management relations in this province, I wonder if he is prepared to take a lesson from South Africa and ask the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) if Alexis Macdonald could be made available as a special officer under the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I suspect it's facetious, but I'm not sure. (Laughter.) All the facts are not bared to me. (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly am not being facetious. It's obvious that the people in South Africa have found a very compelling way in which to end labour

[ Page 746 ]

difficulties — it doesn't involve labour relation boards or anything else. Men go back to work for that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I am unfamiliar with the circumstances involved in which the Member raises the question. Perhaps he should take that up with the Attorney General if he's asking for the services of the Hon. Attorney General.

MILK PRODUCTION COSTS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture: he made a statement yesterday in the media, but is he contemplating any meeting at all with Vancouver Island milk producers in view of the very serious cost problem that they are facing, as has been reported in the last few days?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, no meeting has been arranged. As a matter of fact, they have not asked for a meeting. However, staff are working on this question of milk production costs on the Island, as compared to or contrasted with costs on the mainland.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the immediacy of the situation and its seriousness, would the Minister not consider initiating such a meeting at his level, at the Ministerial level?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd consider anything, but at this moment there are not plans for such a meeting. I do feel that there is some concern for this, and some immediacy for the concern which contrasts somewhat with the remarks, either from the Hon. Member or the one immediately in front of him, suggesting — when we were discussing farm income assurance last night — that it's not really an immediate problem.

PURCHASE OF FRUIT GROWERS
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport and Communications whether the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company has been purchased by the government?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It is in the process of being purchased not by the government, by the Insurance, Corporation of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister, and I thank him then for his correction, whether the price in question is $706,000?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only fixed item about it is the guarantee that the shareholders will get $25 per share.

BCR STRIKE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the damage that is being caused by the untimely strike on the British Columbia Railway, damage to the lumber industry — North Central Plywood in Prince George have closed down, throwing 250 men out of work. Would the Minister of Labour advise the House what is happening with regard to negotiations between the employees on the British Columbia Railway and the railway?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any great mill closures in the Prince George area; certainly I haven't been notified of any. But discussions are underway between officials of my department and the parties involved in the dispute on the British Columbia Railway.

I don't feel, Mr. Speaker, that detailed release of the discussions that are underway would contribute anything to the possibility to achieving a settlement at this time. So I can only report that every effort is being made to bring about a settlement in that dispute.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think this question has been canvassed yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the negotiating team. It's on the same thing and it's never been canvassed before by me, Mr. Speaker. It's a very urgent matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister of Labour advise me how many men on the negotiating team are from the B.C. Federation of Labour; how many men on the negotiating team are ex-employees of the Canadian National Railway; and how many persons on the negotiating team are from the Canadian Pacific Railway?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that type of analysis at hand. I will take the question as notice and provide the answer tomorrow.

[ Page 747 ]

ACCIDENTS ON HOPE-PRINCETON HIGHWAY

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the House that I would report to the House if any new details were forthcoming in regard to the fatality on the Hope-Princeton Highway over the weekend.

There have been two cars go over the embankment in that area since August, 1971. There were three persons in each of those cars and all were killed. The only other accident that was similar to the one that happened over the weekend where the person went too near the edge and fell over was….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: What, the cars? The only other accident that was similar was that the boyfriend of one of the girls that had been killed in a car went up to take a look at the spot and fell over the cliff exactly in the same spot where this Victoria person did.

It seems to me though that with this many cars going over in that short period of time it does warrant special attention, and I am having a special engineering study done there to find out whether we can solve that accident problem by spending some money and having some engineering work done.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN
PLUS-MINUS POLLUTION CONTROL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I would like to ask first what plans the government has to enter into an agreement with Mr. Cy Jones of White Rock to develop his plus-minus method of pollution control using the coal deposits at Hat Creek.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I might say that the staff have carried on discussions with Mr. Jones more or less since we came into office, and some analyses have .been carried out at the University of British Columbia with Dr. Coltart and others. There is no formal relationship, however, and we are considering various pilot opportunities that would involve university people.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that this government has backed away from an obligation that it had with Mr. Jones to allow him to have access to the coal deposits at Hat Creek, and has now forced him to find his sources outside of British Columbia, both in the United States and in Alberta?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all of Mr. Jones' complaints are with the former chairman of B.C. Hydro and the former appointees of the former administration.

MR. McCLELLAND: No way. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Mr. Jones' complaints are with the present government and the present Minister, and I'd like to ask a supplementary. What contact has your executive assistant, Mr. Norman Pearson, had with Mr. Jones in the past two months, and will you honour his patents and will you honour the agreements he has with this government?

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that you are asking the government to give advice on future policy and you are therefore out of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not asking for future policy. I'm asking what contact this man has had with the Minister's executive assistant in the past two months. Were any promises made during those contacts, and will this government honour its agreements? That's not asking for future policy.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that the Minister said there were no agreements. I might be wrong.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs ….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I point out that every Member wants to ask questions.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You just don't like the answers, that's all.

PROVINCIAL COST-SHARING IN
VANCOUVER FAST BUS SERVICE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Does the signature of the Minister at the bottom of ads giving the fare schedules, routes and other information regarding the new fast bus service in greater Vancouver mean that the provincial government has come to an agreement regarding cost-sharing with the municipalities concerned?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think there's agreement as to the cost-sharing. I think the question is whether or not

[ Page 748 ]

there's agreement as to how the money is to be raised.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister why the…?

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that I can accept the one word answer to my previous question which is "No." (Laughter.) May I ask the Minister how it's possible for him to put his signature to this when he has already no knowledge of the financial arrangements on which, of course, the fares are based, as well as the schedules, and as well as the other things?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, probably technically you have a point. (Laughter.) But no one riding the buses has complained so far. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the buses have hardly got into service. May I ask the Minister why in his ad he talked about a 25-cent fare and yet in the time that these buses are meant to be used, namely rush hour, he's boosting the fare to 40 cents?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, that is basically what the fare will be.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Forty cents, or 25?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Twenty-five cents — within that particular area which the ad represented.

B.C. ENERGY CRISIS

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Mr. Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission, recently made a trip to Ottawa and, as I understand it, met with the National Energy Board. Does the Hon. Minister have a report to make to the House concerning the energy crisis in B.C. with respect to the supply of natural gas for our own resource use and our own use in the province?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): That was an informal visit by Mr. Rhodes to the officials of the National Energy Board yesterday. He's back in town. He's reported to me and I'll have something to say within two or three days, possibly tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question on the same subject. Did the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission meet with the Hon. Donald Macdonald while he was in Ottawa?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know — and, you know, it's pretty hard to ask me about what some other person did or did not do. It's

hard enough to get an explanation out of me, and now you're…. (Laughter.) As far as I know the answer is "no".

TRUCK LOGGERS'
STUMPAGE FORMULA

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to ask the Minister of Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) when the promised review of the stumpage formula to the truck loggers will be completed and, if so, is there to be a two-level formula, one for the large operators and one for the small operator?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The intention, Mr. Speaker, is to carry on with the existing formula and keep it under constant review in terms of anomalies and problems at the marginal end. But that will simply be an ongoing thing and the existing formula is being applied in the Interior.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 45.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT

House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Under this section of interpretation, maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would like to advise me how large this fund is. How much money is involved in this Domestic Animal Protection Fund? Do sufficient moneys come out of this fund, or sufficient moneys go into this fund so that it is stabilized? Does the government have to put money into the fund to look after replacement of losses, or does the money from the licensing of dogs keep it pretty well balanced?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe this question should more properly be raised under section 14.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I was going to suggest section 10, Mr. Chairman, but at least we agree it is not section 1.

[ Page 749 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the Hon. Member raise the question again under section 10 or section 14?

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll raise that then, Mr. Chairman.

Now there could be some controversy over the interpretation of exactly what a domestic animal is, and I would like the Minister to enlarge on this. It says, "tame or kept, or that has been or is being sufficiently tamed or kept, to serve some purpose for the use of man; and designated by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be a domestic animal." Is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council going to make a complete list of animals so that people will know what are domestic animals and what are not domestic animals?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has no intention of designing these animals, but it will designate them. Yes, it will spell out in a list the animals that are considered to be domestic animals. It's conceivable even that in some areas of the province the list might differ from other areas, and from time to time it might change.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise me of his definition of the word "dog"? It says it means "an animal of the species canine that is apparently over the age of four months." Are there specific breeds of dogs, or is this all dogs or all canines, or hot dogs? (Laughter.) No, not hot dogs.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if it were all canines, then it might include a lot of wild animals as well. What we are thinking of here are domestic dogs.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): My question is very similar to the one that was just asked by the Member for South Peace River. I am really reluctant to bring up this question because I am afraid the Member for South Peace River might again get going on this topic. In the definition of "dog," would this include any wolves who have any trace whatsoever of dog in them?

Now I understand that in our area, where we have had problems with wolves attacking domestic stock, some of the wolves may in fact have a trace of dog in them. I am wondering if this definition would include them.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What we are talking about here are dogs that might be licensable, if there is such a word. The sort of dog you are talking about, I guess one gets into a question of just exactly what percentage of dog or wolf is in the animal. If it's one that can be considered to be a domestic animal, if someone owns it — or it owns someone, whatever way you want to look at it — if it is licensable, then it's a dog. If it isn't, if it's running wild completely, looking after itself, well then it's not a domestic dog.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm glad the Hon. Member for Comox raised this problem. Do I understand that what we are trying to control here are not dogs, as defined in this Act, but some kind of animal that is licensable? And how do we determine whether a wolf, which has been tamed, is licensable or not? I don't find any definition in the section.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should be too concerned about the matter because I took the startling but rather simple procedure of going to the library and looking in a book. I know it is dangerous sometimes….

I commend the Minister and the draftsman of this legislation for recognizing the problem which the Member for South Peace River has so often raised, because I advise the committee that all dogs belong to a single species, canis familiaris. Other members of the genus canis include the wolves, the coyotes and the jackal.

As we have a definite definition here that "dog" means an animal of the species canine, then I obviously must conclude that that includes wolves, coyotes and jackals, licensable or not, tame, partly tame, eighth-bred, quarter-bred, whatever the case may be. And I am prepared to accept that definition.

As a matter of fact, if you will look at the definition of "wolf," you find that the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Wolf, the typical wild species of the dog family." I think that solves the problem, that we are really talking about wolves.

However it does create another problem, also in section 1. I can only assume that while the ownership of an animal that is licensable within the normal meaning might include any one of us in this assembly, obviously the owner of the wolf, in the true sense the wild dog, must be the person who has control of that wild dog and that must be the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I commend the Minister of Agriculture for putting provisions in this section which are now going to place on the Minister of Recreation and Conservation the duty to carry out those responsibilities in this Act with regard to owners: the payment of all the charges that the owner must make when the Minister's dogs, namely wolves, coyotes and jackals, are found destroying domestic animals.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that when we are drafting the regulations I will refer to Hansard in this particular case.

MR. WILLIAMS: I trust that we're not to take from this that the Minister is by regulation going to

[ Page 750 ]

amend the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then, don't you dare, by regulation, change the definition of "dog" meaning an animal of the species canine, which therefore includes wolf.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't change the dictionary.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has ably defined the word "dog" in this interpretation section, and now I am informed actually that this legislation is indeed going to look after the predator problem, the main part of it being the wild wolves. Not many of them are licensed, so this will be the unlicensed section.

I just wonder if the Minister of Agriculture has consulted with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation before allowing this to go through. Because indeed, as this is written, then it will look after the problem and this indeed will be the legislation, brought in under disguise, to look after the predator problem in British Columbia.

I want to congratulate the Minister. He nearly got it by me without me really recognizing what a great job he was doing, and I think he nearly got it by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation without him really knowing what was happening to the predator problem.

This is certainly the interpretation that I will have to take from this Act and I will immediately go to the phone and tell all the ranchers in British Columbia that their predator problem is going to be solved. Am I right, Mr. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound? Certainly.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've just done something the Social Credit could never do.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the meantime you're doing your best to make sure that I don't succeed in fooling him.

Sections I to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will just reiterate the question that I brought up under the first section and maybe the Minister would give me his remarks.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will note from this section that we are not talking about any existing fund at all; we are saying that moneys raised by sections 3, 4 and 7 will be paid into this fund and it is expected that this will be sufficient. In light of experience we may find that it is more than sufficient, then we will have to come back to the legislature for some further consideration.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45, Domestic Animal Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections I to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has any intention of setting up a provincial insemination stock with good breeds in it that cattlemen can draw from, or is it strictly going to be still by the people who are doing it now?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the intention at the moment is that it will be by the people who are doing it now, except that individuals or even groups of individuals who want to get together to bring in something in particular may, under this section, be licensed to do so.

MR. PHILLIPS: I guess I was thinking, Mr. Minister, when the ranch goes ahead in conjunction with the Dawson Creek Vocational School, you could have some really good breeding stock in there which you have been using. Would you, for instance, put aside some semen and sell it to the local ranchers so that they could build up their stock? You certainly will be doing some research and building up stocks on this ranch and in essence it might help to upgrade the cattle industry in the Peace River area if you had good semen to draw from.

[ Page 751 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again we are looking ahead to the discussions that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I will be having about the development at that school. Assuming it did go in that direction, I think that would be a very worthwhile addition to the services offered.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Livestock Production Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DISTRESSED
AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 67; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Distressed Area Assistance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
IMPROVEMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. As I look at the orders of the day, this bill is on orders for second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Bill 68, Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, comes under second reading, and it's only been printed. We haven't debated it in second reading. We passed the whole Act in committee. It's pretty sneaky.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come it took you so long?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I looked at the bill and I thought, we haven't debated that. I thought, well, I guess I must have been away or something.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I'm advised that Bill 68 is still in second reading on the order paper.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm advised by the order paper. I studied it a minute ago and I saw that it was not in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have a report from the Chairman of the committee?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have not had a report from the Chairman of the committee. There should be no report from the Chairman of the committee until it's gone through second reading.

What is the pleasure of the House?

MRS. DAILLY: I move that the committee rise on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you can't because the committee is not empowered to sit. (Laughter.) In consequence you can call Bill 68 and debate second reading or completion of second reading of Bill 68.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 752 ]

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
IMPROVEMENT ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, now that we're all agreed that we're talking about Bill 68, Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, this was described when it was first talked about as the third of the three particularly important bills that were to be presented in this session of the Legislature to assist in the development of agriculture. The other two have been dealt with. The third one is before us now.

There is some question as to why we need a bill such as this when we have already legislation passed dealing with the B.C. Development Corporation. This particular bill is designed to draw our attention to those industries which are engaged in the processing or handling of agricultural products in particular. It is not anticipated that there will be any new organization, any new structure necessary to handle the work that will be necessary to serve the purposes of this legislation. Rather the Department of Agriculture, in considering applications for loans under this legislation, would be using the staff, the expertise in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

But there will be another consideration, an extra consideration if you like, and that is some thought will be given not only to those industries which are going to serve the general industrial development of the province which will come into the area of the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), but those in particular which are important for the developing agricultural industry and which will tie in with our programme to increase food production and to spread the increase in food production around the province — more than has been the case in the past.

The Premier has made it very clear on many occasions on behalf of the government that as far as the B.C. Development Corporation is concerned, it will not be the intention of that corporation to subsidize, in any way at all, industrial development. That corporation will be concerned with those industries that can make a meaningful contribution to the industrial development of the province, but will also stand on their own feet as individual economic entities.

However, in the case of agriculture, by including this extra consideration, the idea that an industry, whether or not it is able to stand on its own as a successful enterprise, its existence may be justified in the fact that it is making a meaningful contribution to the expanding agricultural industry, or to the production of some particular foodstuff for which there is a need, either in the province or outside of the province. It is with that in mind that we have introduced what is, in a sense, complementary legislation to the B.C. Development Corporation, but nevertheless legislation that is designed very definitely to assist in the development of the agricultural industry. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I want to say that the official opposition certainly agrees with the good idea, the very good idea, behind this bill of assisting secondary manufacturing of farm products. However, I don't know why on earth the Minister of Agriculture had to take such a perfectly good idea and bugger it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: He buggered it up under section 3, where it says that the government….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is some decorum in the House, I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's muddled it up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well he's muddled it up then, by allowing the government to become again partners in these operations. Not only partners, they can go in and own the whole cotton-picking outfit. And they can also use this Act, where a person needs assistance and has a good idea, to blackmail their way into partnership, and eventually the government could end up owning all the food-processing plants in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And probably will.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the chairman of our agriculture committee pats his desk. I want to tell that Member, Mr. Speaker, that if the government should ever be in the position of owning all the food-processing plants in British Columbia, the farmers in this province would be in a sorry state indeed. For that Member to clap for that process really astounds me, after him travelling throughout the Province of British Columbia this summer listening to the farm problems and knowing full well that this is not the answer.

Now, to give you some idea what can happen to the production of foodstuffs in a country where the government gets in and messes the situation up where it's been handled by farmers doing a good job: A good example is our milk industry. Already the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has predicted a shortage of milk in the Province of British Columbia. He says that the shortage of milk is predicated on the fact of the high cost of feed and the high cost of machinery, and so forth.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the high cost of feed is not

[ Page 753 ]

the reason that so many dairymen are going out of business. Dairy herds all over the Province of British Columbia are being sold; they're going out of business. Why? No. I is that they can no longer have the land that they want to operate in. Bill 42 has caused many dairymen to go out of business.

Another instance that we could talk about, when we're talking about foodstuffs and the assistance of the government to assist secondary industry, is the poultry industry. The government has plans to put a poultry processing plant in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis') riding to process poultry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where should it be?

MR. PHILLIPS: Where should that poultry processing plant truly be, Mr. Speaker? It should either be in the Kootenays or in the South Peace area. (Laughter.)

Well, the Members laugh. But as long as they're the government and as long as the government through this section of this bill can go in and needle their way in and blackmail their way in to get control of these processing plants, the government can put them where they want to — not necessarily where they should be; they can put them where they want to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not parliamentary to suggest or state, as the Member did, that the government is blackmailing its way into something. That is definitely unparliamentary. I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they certainly have the opportunity to use undue pressure then, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You withdraw the word.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Completely, unequivocally I withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you withdraw from the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: They have the right to exert pressure, undue pressure, in places to go into this. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the intent behind this bill is excellent; it's timely and it's needed. But why does the government always have to want to get their hands into the action so that they can control? This is typical of all the legislation this government brings down. I want to say I am unequivocally opposed to that idea, although I am in favour of the intent behind the bill.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): It's certainly a pleasure to stand in support of the principle of this bill. We travelled around the province, as the Member for South Peace River mentioned, and it's been reported before in this House that we found that agriculture in general was in a disastrous position.

We found areas, such as the Grand Forks area, where half of the land that had been in agriculture production years ago was now lying in weeds while the owners were working in industry, for the Highways department or for a mill — anything but to return and try to make a living out of the land which they hadn't been able to do in the past.

Governments for the past 50 to 75 years have always had to assist agriculture because there's been an insistence on the part of the consumer that he get cheap food. In order to get the cheap food, there had to be assistance both federally and provincially for almost all sections of the agricultural industry.

We also found areas in the province where the complaint of the people in the agricultural industry appearing before us said over and over, in many ways there could be a remunerative agricultural production if there was a processing plant in their area.

The reason I thumped my desk when it was suggested that the government take over the agricultural processing in this province was because private industry has failed and failed so miserably in the past to assist these people to put in the processing plants they want. Every area we went to, the riding of the Member for South Peace River included, reported that they could be in an agricultural business if there was the processing facility necessary to process the product they produced.

I understand it's been mentioned in this House in the spring session that there was to be assistance from the government for a pelletizing plant in Peace River. It looked from our tour up there and the information I was able to find out that if there wasn't government assistance, that plant could be many, many more years in coming — instead of in the very near future.

I hope to see government participation in these plants — in these processing industries — whether it be for fruit, root products, grain products, or whatever, to see that the farmer gets a chance for an outlet for his product because there will be a decent processing plant in his area. I would certainly encourage the Minister with all speed to get them established.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, briefly, I just want to support this bill — it has to do with the industry of agriculture — and make one comment on some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

It's been clear to me in my research that the

[ Page 754 ]

farmer in this province, for the past 20 years, has had no assistance of this type and in this regard. It is clear to me from my brief experience in my present post that people who are farmers and want to involve themselves in secondary processing of agricultural products wish very much for the government to get involved. And getting involved doesn't mean to allow the farmers to be left on their own and to their own resources in their markets and in the processing of their produce.

We are slowly being absorbed by the California producers and other out-of-jurisdiction producers. We're becoming dangerously unself-sufficient with respect to our agricultural products.

We started by bringing in legislation to preserve farmland. The second step that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is now taking is to enhance agriculture, make it viable, make it economic, and make us, as British Columbians, self-sufficient with respect to agricultural products.

It is my understanding that the government should get involved in equity positions in these processing plants because for many years we haven't had the experience in this province in a great many areas with respect to the processing of agricultural products. It is incumbent upon us when we invest the taxpayers' money, either as subsidy or as an investment, that we have the opportunity to share in the management of the process. It is not the intention of the government to take these things over; nothing could be further from the government's mind. Certainly it is our responsibility to share in management and in equity and bring about a situation where the farmer has an opportunity to sell his produce within our jurisdiction.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of this bill. It follows the intent of the other agricultural bills. I'm not quite as sure as the Minister was that this was necessary when we have the same intent in the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act.

In supporting the principle of this bill, I have to recognize that the Minister has put in some ballpark figures whereby the total of money loaned should not exceed $20 million, and I think that's commendable.

I have to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that our main concern in the bill is with section 3 where, despite the assurances of the Member and the Minister who has just spoken that it is not the intention of government to take over processing enterprises, we in this party believe very strongly that government should not be increasingly designing its legislation to give it the power to take over industries.

We had a bill introduced the other day in the petroleum and mining industry which does exactly that — provide complete and total power to take over that particular industry. We have here, in section 3, the power to invest in the agricultural enterprises or to purchase an interest in the agricultural enterprise.

Now we feel that as long as government were not to acquire a majority position in such an enterprise, this might be acceptable. But the danger inherent in having government as a partner in business or industry is something which gives us on this side of the House a great deal of concern. Because as I have said many times in this House in this session, Mr. Speaker, the minute government becomes a business partner, it is in a very different position from any other business partner simply because of its unique position as government.

When other difficulties may or may not arise in these industries or businesses, particularly in the labour-relations field, the government is in a unique position to use power which is not available to any other partner or individual in business. We're very concerned not only that this bill could allow that to happen but, worse still, that section 3 could quite easily permit the government to gain complete and total control of the industry and the processing plants that it's designed to assist.

It's the simple division of philosophy between this side of the House and that side of the House. It is the function of government to create economic advantages to the private sector, whether it be in agriculture or production of secondary goods or otherwise. It's not our feeling that government should put itself in the position of completely controlling this sector of the economy or any other sector presently in private hands.

We don't believe that this government or any other government has been wildly successful in proving that it can do a better job than private enterprise. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), who was so jubilant about the power which would enable this government to take over the processing plants, claims that private enterprise has failed. I don't think it follows, Mr. Speaker, that because it has failed this bill will ensure that the government will succeed. I think it is much more rational to suggest that, at this stage in time, assistance such as this bill offers should be restricted to the provision of loans which the government can provide, and, under section 4, to taking security for the loans and guarantees.

But the biggest danger in this bill unquestionably lies in section 3. While we strongly support the principle of the bill which is well outlined, as the Minister pointed out, in section 2, we will be introducing amendments to remove what to us is a very serious obstacle to wholehearted support of this bill.

In principle, it is the kind of measure which from all sides of the House we have heard is necessary. What we suggest is not necessary is the kind of power in section 3 which could quite readily be used to give the government complete control over the industry.

[ Page 755 ]

We oppose this and always will.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to support what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has said. He had a meeting, along with the Minister of Agriculture, with just one of many people in my riding who are asking for help and for us to take an equity position in their industry. In this case it was Clappison Packers, the only hog processor in British Columbia and one of the larger independent packing houses in British Columbia. This person, who unfortunately has not set up some kind of a system for people to take an equity position and a stronger management position in his company, is asking for us to take some leadership, to work out some kind of a management arrangement with him and a very strong equity position.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce has made it very clear that we have certain requirements if we ever enter into that. We must have studies on the market feasibility of the product. In this case we're talking about getting beyond simply cutting the animal in half, cleaning it and, in a rather raw-material state, sending out the product as sides of meat. We'd like to get into bacons, hams and sausages in a much higher, better revenue product. The Minister insists that we have market feasibility studies, that we get proper management analysis, that we have some idea of the cash flow of any venture before we ever risk any of this $20 million of the people's money we're talking about here.

I just want to remind you that there are people; I mentioned Clappison Packers as an illustration. This 200-hog-per-day packing plant down in Maple Ridge is one of many, many places in B.C. that simply wants to have some help, some encouragement, both equity and management-wise, and would like us to work with them. Whether we make a decision to join Mr. Clappison, I don't know. It's really not my priority and there are many, many questions to be asked.

But I think it should be known that there was neglect. My predecessor was a Social Crediter and even Mr. Clappison, I'm told, is a Social Crediter. There was nothing done for people like this — very little encouragement. Only on the eve of the provincial election did the previous Premier say that there would be small-interest loans for agriculture-producing industries.

So let's support the bill. I'd like to see a great deal more done — for instance, more processing in this particular form of agriculture — before more and more of the industry goes to Edmonton and to other parts of Alberta. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We welcome this bill as well, and we welcome it doubly because it includes in some of its later sections some of the protections which have been heretofore missing in earlier legislation introduced by this Minister which is giving him extensive powers to deal with the expenditure of moneys. I think that the wisdom of the argument to be made in those bills and the need for the restrictions that we find in this bill are clearly evidenced by statements made by the Minister following the introduction of this legislation a few days ago.

I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Dewdney has said and I think that it is important to recall to the Minister that the Member for Dewdney spoke of the risks involved when moving into the area of secondary industry. I trust the Member for Dewdney will recognize the import of what the Minister said to the press following the introduction of this bill; he said the Act would be dealt with in conjunction with the B.C. Development Corporation. He added that it was being brought in separately from the B.C. Development Corporation because — and these are the Minister's words as quoted by the press: "In the case of agriculture, we're prepared to go further than a reasonable business venture."

I hope, when the Minister closes the debate, that he will remove from my mind the concern which those words raise. Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister, that because we're moving into the area of processing, storing, handling or transporting of an agricultural product — in other words, one step removed from the farm — that we must approach the decision as to whether or not a loan will be made or, indeed, Mr. Speaker, whether a grant will be made…. And I point out to you that there is power in this legislation for making grants of up to $1 million in any one year; a grant, under section 9, of $1 million in any fiscal year. That's a very extensive power of granting funds.

A grant, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, is one which is a direct application of funds without any obligation to repay. I would hate to think that we're moving into the age in this province where we would perhaps take a risk, a flyer on a risky business venture, one which might not pass the scrutiny of the B.C. Development Corporation.

As I read through the Act I was pleased to note that there were several sections which gave the power to the Minister similar to that which is exercised by many of our leading financial institutions. In particular, the Industrial Development Bank has powers similar to those which are given to the Minister to ensure that the moneys are being appropriately applied and that the conduct of the affairs of the venture to which the government may make a loan or a grant are carried out properly and that the object of making the grant is likely to be fulfilled.

[ Page 756 ]

I welcome those, but I am disturbed at the attitude apparently indicated in the Minister's remarks. I would hope that he would make some additional comment which would assure the Members of this House and the people of this province that we're not going to take any risky flyers.

In many of these small processing operations, there is serious risk of loss. It will be scant satisfaction to the government, it will be scant satisfaction to the farming community if, because proper care was not taken at the outset, a food-processing industry was started and allowed to fail because of inadequate investment capital from the private sector to go along with the investment or loan made by the government.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if he would indicate to the House the need in this legislation to extend the lending power and the granting power back into the food production area. In other words, as I read the legislation the farm itself may also be the benefactor of this legislation.

As you read the title, and from the remarks of the Minister when it was introduced, you would think that this applied only to those secondary steps, once at least removed from the farm. But there are words in the statute which indicate that the farm itself may be included, and the farmer may be included as the one who can apply for loans or for grants.

There are two sections — one, the definition of agricultural industry, and the section specifying the purposes and objects of this legislation — which are broad enough to include the farmer himself.

Yes, we support the bill. It contains, we think, a reasonable safeguard in the hands of the Minister. But since this government has decided to go into the field of investing wholly, or in part, in undertakings which heretofore have been considered to be solely within the realm of the private sector, I would like to know from the Minister why he has not felt it necessary to assemble in his department the kind of skills that obviously are being assembled — we hope are being assembled — with respect to the B.C. Development Corporation.

I know the Minister has in the reorganization of his department set up an economic division, and at the last report that I saw, that particular division was still without a head. I would like to know whether or not that senior and important position in his department has been filled or will likely be filled, and whether the economic branch of the Department of Agriculture will play a particular role in the administration of the Minister's responsibilities under this legislation.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), who isn't in his seat right now, raised a question about the government applying undue pressure to persuade people that they should allow the government to take an equity position in enterprises such as are envisioned in this legislation.

I know there has been discussion with some enterprises, with some potential enterprises, in anticipation of this legislation. Some discussion has been going on for some months, as a matter of fact. I certainly know of no undue pressure on the part of government. I know of no pressure. As a matter of fact, the situation has been just the opposite.

There has, indeed, been pressure from the farmers themselves and the people who are interested in establishing or expanding agricultural industries. There has been, if not pressure, at least persuasion from those areas for the government to enter in on some sort of an equity basis, not controlling, but some sort of an equity basis.

If he has any indication at all, any knowledge of any instance where the government or any of its staff has been exerting pressure on anyone — if there has been any information of any kind that he has where the government has been exerting any pressure or any influence to try to persuade people that they should allow the government — he called it "undue" pressure, I say even if there has been any persuasion — I'd very much like to be aware of those instances.

On the case of the poultry processing plant which he predicts will go into the Shuswap riding — and I note the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was interested in this — I think there has been no suggestion from the government benches as to exactly where it would be located. If he seriously suggests that it should be in the Peace River, then I think we should all be thankful that he is not in a position to make this sort of a decision. Because certainly if a plant such as that is going to do any service to the agricultural industry then it should be in a place where there is some product for the plant to work with, or in a place where there is likely to be a sufficient volume for it to work with. I think the day when a plant such as that would be justified in the Peace River is quite far distant.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised the same concern about equity. Is it necessary…? Now he's out. I'll perhaps leave that just in case he comes back in.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) acknowledges that this particular legislation does limit the amount of money available and is pleased that it does. I say again, as I said yesterday, I believe, in debating another bill, in this particular instance it is quite appropriate that the amount should be set. There is no reason at all why it shouldn't be set. It is appropriate that it should be set; and so it is in this legislation. In the other case it

[ Page 757 ]

was not so appropriate and not so practical to put an amount in.

The remarks that he quoted — remarks that I made — that we would go further than reasonable business ventures, that we would consider, at least, going further than reasonable business ventures: yes, those words were certainly, if not a complete quote, a correct quote, and certainly the way I feel about this particular legislation.

I think to explain that — I did, perhaps briefly, in my opening remarks in second reading — there are instances where a particular agricultural industry might be developed, might be forward-thinking, if you like. And I'd like to refer for a moment, if I may, to the first dehydrated alfalfa plant in the province, which for the Province of British Columbia is breaking new ground. They've been very slow to select the equipment for this because new equipment is being developed almost monthly. So it's a matter of finding the equipment that is best suited to the needs of our province and even to the different needs of our province.

The conditions, for example, in the Peace River area where the first plant is being established are markedly different from the conditions that exist in the Interior or the southern part of the province. So there are these extra problems.

The plant in the Peace River might very well be the first of several in the Peace River area. However, with respect to the first one, it might be that there are extra costs — extra start-up costs, that would make one venture all on its own uneconomic or economic at least for a time until it becomes acceptable — both the product that it is producing and the product that is going into the plant. All these things have to be proven.

So in a case like that where the Department of Agriculture is convinced that this plant is a worthwhile venture, that it can make a significant contribution to agriculture — in a situation like that we might very well go beyond what a sound business venture might be in the relatively short-term period. But in our belief, if you like, that it is going to have a long-range benefit and that successive plants of that particular kind could be established, would be established in the province, and that in total even in a longer period of time, and we can look at it in a longer period of time and look at it in a larger picture than the individuals in that area could look at it, in total it is something that would be definitely economic.

As far as the government sharing in it — this is something that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised…. Well, I'll just deal with the other question he raised about assembling the skills. I think I tried to explain this too.

We wouldn't want to duplicate the skills that ~re available in the Department of Industrial Development. What we are thinking of is complementing them. While the Department of Industrial Development did, for example, examine the proposal made by the people who were sponsoring South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. — that was examined by the Department of Industrial Development. They came to the conclusion that economically it was sound, but just barely, and depending upon all of the conditions, working out pretty well ideal. So a judgment then had to be made. Should this go ahead, or shouldn't it go ahead? There was, if you like, a bit of a gamble.

Again I am emphasizing a gamble in particular, because it was the first one in B.C., the first one in that area, because there was no experience with that type of product in the province, and no experience with people supplying that particular kind of plant.

So in that case we would not want to duplicate the skills available in the Department of Industrial Development, but we would want to add something to the consideration.

We would want to add some thought to the future of the development of agriculture in the province and throw that into the balance, if you like, and let that tip the balance in favour of going ahead with the project.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay did raise some questions: the necessity of government involvement. Why are we so interested in controlling or in purchasing an interest? The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) gave reasons for that.

As long as the government is involved then the government has some responsibility to protect the investment that the taxpayers are making in that plant.

Even more important: it is sometimes hard to persuade producers that they should get together cooperatively to do something that is different. Some of them have had their fingers burned in cooperatives of one kind or another in the past, and they are just a little bit hesitant, perhaps more than a little bit hesitant. When the government comes along and says, "Well, we think this is a good idea. Go ahead, fellows, " They say, "That's all very well for you. You're not putting anything into it. You tell us to go ahead, but you're not putting anything in. We're the ones who stand to lose if it doesn't work."

So it is with a view to encouraging people in situations like that, of encouraging them to go ahead, and, if you like, in a way putting our money where our mouths are, and saying that we think this is a good venture; we're prepared to enter it with you in a sort of a partnership basis to get it going. Once we have proven it is a reasonable enterprise, once you have shown that you can stand on your own feet, then the government will be only too happy to get out of it.

[ Page 758 ]

We have neither the staff nor the interest in becoming involved in many relatively small industrial enterprises, even though they be agriculture-oriented. In many relatively small industrial enterprises all over the province we have neither the staff nor the interest. We want to encourage these to get established. We want to help them to get established and if this encouragement and help takes the form of government participation in the enterprise, on a relatively short-term basis, then we are prepared to do that.

There are other reasons, other situations, where we might want to do something like that and some of this has been mentioned. But we have had, goodness knows, too much experience in this province of small processing industries being purchased by foreign corporations with a view to shutting them down and then getting the market for that produce. They buy up canneries and almost immediately close the canneries, with a result not only of the labour loss in that area, but also a loss of production in that area because we then find that the loss of food production is made up by imports from those canneries from abroad.

Under this legislation we would be also able to act to prevent things like that happening, with a view to encouraging the distribution of production around the province. There would be the possibility of establishing a broiler-producing industry, for example, in the Interior. But it just wouldn't be practical to do so unless there was some assurance in the minds of those producers that there was going to be a processing plant.

In the event that there was no one ready to start it and in the event that the producers locally might be prepared to get in but are not enough in themselves to establish such a plant, then we want to be willing to back up our intention to spread that particular industry, broiler production, around the province to make it financially possible for it to happen by saying that we are determined that there will be a poultry-processing plant available close enough to the production area so that the product can be processed.

So with a view again to doing that, we feel it is necessary, in some circumstances, that there would be government involvement. This is not going to be an extremely important part of the work of what is planned in this legislation, but we do feel that it is necessary to do what we want to do to have the authority in this legislation to take these actions. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 68 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 71.

WEED CONTROL ACT

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The purpose of this Act is to replace the previous Noxious Weeds Act — replacing it, we hope, in a more workable and more practical form. In this legislation we are proposing that the government of the province will be prepared to enter into agreements with municipalities — that will include village municipalities and it could include regional districts — to set up weed advisory committees to allow them, if they choose, to appoint inspectors and, if they like, weed control officers, to carry out the intention of this Act.

Under this legislation it will be more practical than was previously the case for municipalities themselves, in the widest definition of the word, to prepare lists of noxious weeks that are of immediate concern in their own particular district. Of course, this would vary markedly from one district to another. The government of the province is prepared to assist in financing weed control in these areas — in some areas, perhaps, to do the whole job.

There might be other areas where the municipalities — again using the broadest sense of the word — themselves might feel that the programme is not serving the needs of the local area to the extent that they would like to see them served and might want to complement the work that the Department of Agriculture is doing.

However, there would be this cooperation and, under this legislation, more opportunity for cooperation than there has been in the past. When the weeds are controlled, the cost of this controlling could be invoiced; could be charged against the occupier of the land, whoever the occupier might be; could be recovered, if necessary, by setting this out on the tax roll under the Municipal Act and collected as are taxes in arrears generally.

Of course, it includes the provision that the municipalities themselves may be the occupier of land under certain circumstances; the Department of Highways might be the occupier. It also includes the provision that certain areas within weed-control areas might be exempted from the provisions of this Act, as the case may be, depending again upon consultation with the local areas concerned.

Really, the intent is that in this legislation we would be consulting more with the local areas, accepting more suggestions from them as to the working of this legislation, hoping that we will reduce the tremendous losses that we presently incur from noxious weeds — hoping that we can control these at least and eventually reduce these losses and eventually increase food production by this method

[ Page 759 ]

along with all the other methods we are considering.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say that I agree with the Minister's remarks in setting up this bill. It certainly is needed. But I want to warn the Minister that, in the execution of this bill and bringing about the results that he desires and the results that a lot of the ranchers desire and a lot of the farmers desire, he is going to run headlong into problems with some of the environmentalists.

I think that maybe meetings are going to be required with these people so that you can sit down with persons from the Department of Agriculture, with persons from the environmental groups and with some of the farmers and ranchers and landowners involved, and do some real soul-searching with regard to the use of certain herbicides. It is going to be necessary. If we are going to control certain of these weeds, we are going to have to use some of these herbicides, and they are going to have some obnoxious side effects. You can't have it both ways.

Right now the weeds are taking over — right? So, as I say, the Minister is going to have to get together to form groups in the area concerned and sit down in a sane and sensible conversation and discuss what the side effects are going to be and what the effects will be if the weeds aren't controlled. travelling about last summer, for instance, we learned of the invasion of the knapweed up in the Kootenays and the Kamloops area.

So, as I say, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, you are going to have a great deal of difficulty in bringing about the results that you want to bring about in enacting this piece of legislation. You know yourself that spraying along highways has its advantages and it has its disadvantages. Who is going to make the decisions? Is it going to be the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in the final analysis, or are you going to form a committee to work with environmental groups and those people involved?

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, in closing the debate, will give me some idea of how he intends to solve this problem. I hope that he will make the way clear for the scientists to get to work again and to come up with some of the chemicals that we are going to have to use.

Maybe, if the proper incentive is there and they know that they are going to be able to sell their product once it is developed, they will put a little more research into it and get a more refined product that might not have as many bad side effects. I hope the Minister will give me some idea of how he intends to do this, because you just don't control weeds by ploughing them under the ground.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often I get a chance to agree with the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips). I think it's probably the first time since I've been in this House. I've ruined his reputation.

I think that this particular part of the bill bears serious consideration. I'm very much concerned that, the way the bill is laid out now, it has not explained how we are going to look after the environmental problems, and the use of herbicides and pesticides in general.

It puts a lot of control in the hands of the local community. Some communities may bring in rigid controls and some may not, so we might differ from one area to the other. I think that this particular aspect of weed control should be very carefully controlled from the provincial level in conjunction with environmental people. I don't think it should be just left up to people in the Department of Agriculture.

In my experience in agriculture, when I was taking soil science at the university, I found that most of the people there in weed control and in soil science had not been too concerned with the side effects of the herbicides and pesticides that were being used.

Much of the research money that came into the university, and many of the people there…some money came from the chemical companies and the fertilizer companies and so on. So in a way we have become somewhat biased in our training. I went through this training myself, and it was a long time before I started to look at it and think that maybe there was some fault with the types of fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides we were using.

I think it should bear very careful study when we determine how we are going to control the weeds. I think the terms of reference that are set up, that the weeds should be controlled, are good. But control of how we're going to control them, what kind of chemicals we're going to use, whether we can indeed get our scientists to develop chemicals, as the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) suggested we might be able to do — if we can get our scientists to develop chemicals that wouldn't be harmful — I think that would be great.

I think that we should start these wheels in motion now and that we have to have that kind of consultation so that we don't embark upon a programme in one area that's going to conflict with another — and where you find one group making it a little more difficult for the farmers to operate because they can't use sprays, and another group allowed to use some and another municipality allowing them to use everything.

We had a spraying problem in my own riding a year ago. We more or less banned spraying in one section of the community which is largely residential — sprays such as 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and so on — but we are permitting them to be used at the present time in the agricultural zone, pending studies that the

[ Page 760 ]

provincial government has been making in their hearings on pesticides this year.

But I don't think that you could allow communities like that to have dividing lines in them where you've got one agricultural community using them and one not. So we must have province-wide control of pesticides and herbicides. I welcome the suggestion by the Hon. Member for South Peace that we should have some environmental people in on this decision that will be made when the Department of Agriculture sets up the means under this bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a delightful display of unanimity on this subject today. When one considers what the Minister has said concerning the cost to the agricultural community of our failures to control noxious weeds — something in the neighbourhood of $72 million to $75 million a year: that is the cost to our total community from allowing weeds to go uncontrolled. In addition, a part of that $75 million cost is a $3 million health cost.

This should be enough, I think, to encourage the government to act in a manner that the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) have suggested. That is, by really getting together with the environmentalists, with the Department of Health, with the research scientists who were involved in attempting to improve herbicides and pesticides, and bringing them together with the agriculturalists so that everyone begins to recognize the extent of the problem of controlling weeds — and at the same time insects — as well as the implications which it has for human existence.

I think for too long we have gone about in our separate compartments, separate ways, approaching the problem from our own point of view. We've had too many examples of that in this province in the past, and even in the past year. The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) — and I don't criticize him for the decision he made — made a decision that they want to stop destroying the weeds along the rights-of-way of highways. This was done, I'm sure, at the urging of the Department of Health, and that's understandable.

But it just happened, Mr. Speaker, that this decision was made while the agricultural committee was on its tours, and we got an immediate negative reaction from the farming communities, particularly the ranchers who were able to take us out on to the highways and show us the consequences of failing to carry out a weed-control programme within those highway rights-of-way.

At the same time we have had in the past in this province, through the Crown corporations, the most irresponsible actions taken by B.C. Hydro and by the B.C. Railway with respect to the control of weeds along the rights-of-way of power transmission lines and the railway. Now B.C. Hydro appears to have learned its lesson and is now looking more to the environmental impact of some of the practices that it carried out. And I hope that the B.C. Rail can be encouraged to do the same — not by the use or overuse of chemical sprays, but by approaching the weed control along the right-of-way of the railway by the use of workmen and by return to the section approach of looking after the right-of-way.

I think we can make a real start if we get together with our Crown corporations, with the several departments of government who all have an interest in this particular problem and in its solutions, and do something once and for all on a concerted-effort basis.

We can hardly accept any longer the suggestion that the cost is too great. As the Minister pointed out, and I repeat again, the cost in agriculture alone is $75 million a year. Mr. Speaker, a very small part of $75 million a year applied to research and to improving the methods of weed control would repay us handsomely.

At the same time there is an emerging body of opinion as to the implications which will befall the agricultural committee and all of the food production areas if we stop altogether the use of chemical sprays or fail to find some better method of controlling insects. Now that the government, through the Land Commission Act, has established agricultural reserves, we must at the same time move forward at this particular time to ensure that the lands placed in those reserves do not become useless to agriculture because we fail to control things such as noxious weeds.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a very few brief remarks on this bill. It is evident that all parties in the House will support it.

I am disappointed, as evidently a number of other Members, are, that there is not an appropriate attitude in this bill toward noxious sprays, There's no indication that people with some sensitivity to the environment are to be appointed to these councils and to have some say in what is appropriate to use in the way of a noxious weed control agent in any given circumstance.

But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned that an opportunity wasn't taken with this particular Act to bring under control the greatest environmental offenders that we have. These are governments. I've had occasion, perhaps more than most Members of the Legislature, to travel the province in the years when I was leader of the Liberal Party, and I was continually struck by the insanity and intransigence of governments and Crown corporations.

When it comes to noxious chemicals and sprays, governments and their agencies are the offenders. We might as well start right at the top with the federal

[ Page 761 ]

government where, in conjunction with the United States government, our Canadian government sprays the Canada-U.S. border with noxious chemicals.

It really isn't to kill weeds; it's to make a nice, big bare stripe down the 49th parallel. You can go along the 49th parallel in some of the more remote areas of British Columbia and find empty cans of poisonous chemicals, healthy trees of last year with dead leaves on them. That isn't to control noxious weeds; it's to make a nice, pretty, broad stripe down the centre of the 49th parallel.

Then you can go to the power line rights-of-way of B.C. Hydro. Tremendous amounts of offensive, toxic chemicals are poured along those rights-of-way, not to control weeds but trees and other healthy and desirable foliage, for a nice, big, bare stripe along where the power lines happen to run so that jeeps can go along and it's easy to maintain the line. But these chemicals, unfortunately, can spread from the area that has been sprayed into the drinking water, into the fishing streams and away from the right-of-way. The Crown corporation wants to have a pretty, clean stripe running through the middle of the countryside.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) mentioned how the B.C. Railway likes to keep the ties clean, not to have any bushes or weeds growing there, so they use huge amounts of noxious chemicals. They always say it's keeping foliage of any kind down. So you use chemicals that will destroy healthy and desirable foliage.

Then you come to the provincial government itself and its Department of Highways where the same thing is done along the edges of the road.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): No, no.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to individual environmentalists, as the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned, to try and protect their fishing streams or their source of water supply or their own healthy foliage, they find themselves most helpless against federal governments, provincial governments and Crown corporations. Where is the average person in British Columbia to turn to have his environment improved? Well, he has to turn to governments themselves, and when they pass legislation that seems to encourage, as this one might, the killing of weeds in any fashion that seems expedient, gives no indication of its desire to measure the environmental impact of this, and, above all, gives no indication of a desire to curb the abuses that governments have heaped on the citizens in the past, then you can't blame them for being cynical and militant.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, before this bill becomes law, the Minister of Agriculture will be able to bring in some amendments. Perhaps we can suggest some to him that would give the average citizen an idea that his government, at least, and that Minister has a little sense of proportion about all of this and that the environment is going to have a higher place in the standing of the government order of things than it has in the past.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like to participate briefly in this debate. In speaking to the bill, which is the Weed Control Act, it does occur to me that there's always a conflict of interest between those people who would like to control all weeds by whatever form of herbicide is available and those people who, for environmental reasons, protest greatly the use of herbicides of any kind, I know that in the enactment of this bill and in the actual field application of it, the Minister is going to find times when his department will be pressured by many different groups with many opposing opinions.

To a farmer, the fact that his field is infested with weeds is something undesirable and, particularly to a farmer, if his fields are infested as a result of lack of attention to public rights-of-way, to highways, to power lines and to neighbouring property which may be Crown land, it becomes a very frustrating matter. In that respect I would suggest to the Minister that he will have to proceed most cautiously when allocating on a pro rata basis, or whatever basis is decided, the expense of treating and controlling weeds. There is nothing that irritates a farmer more than to be charged for the control of weeds which came about as a result of poor farming practices on the land adjacent to him or as a result of Crown land infested with weeds, be it road allowances, rights-of-way or whatever.

Many of the herbicides that we have used in the past we have found to be ecologically unsafe, if we have respect for the wildlife in the area, the birds and the plants and so on. So I do think that in setting up this particular bill in his department, the first thing the Minister should really give consideration to is the establishment of priorities with respect to weed control. By that I mean simply this: is the production of food the No. I priority? If that is to be the case, then the type of herbicides that we would use will either be those that are known to us today or others that have not yet been invented. If it is the expert opinion of people who are qualified and knowledgeable in the field of herbicides that certain chemicals are dangerous and too volatile, then we should be putting money into research to find chemicals that we can use.

Good farmers tell me that the best control of weeds is good farming practices. If you farm properly you do not have too great a problem with weeds. I can recall not too many years ago that many farms in the Peace River country were considered to be weed free and, as a result of that, they gained worldwide

[ Page 762 ]

recognition for growing legume crops because of the fact that very few noxious weeds infested those fields.

I'm sorry to say that that is not the case today. The weed infestation of the Peace River country is probably as great as any part of the Province of British Columbia. Part of it is a result of poor farming practices, but a greater part, I believe, is the result of poor housekeeping by departments of the government.

So if the production of food is a No. I priority, we must decide what type of herbicides farmers will be permitted to use and, in fact, find a method of prorating the costs of controlling weeds if it must be done by the officers under the jurisdiction of this department. Certainly a farmer who has a reputation for weed-free farms and clean land should not be penalized because some of his neighbours or even the Crown itself were not nearly as particular.

The other area that we become involved in, of course, with the use of herbicides on a wide scale is the protection of wildlife and plant life. We can't continue to keep our road allowances clear of weeds and small brush, and our rights-of-way for B.C. Hydro clear of weeds and brush without using some form of herbicide.

Yet at the same time we create a problem, which the Minister is well aware of, and that is that we destroy birds, we destroy small plants and small animals with the herbicide that has been used in the past. Something must be decided if that is to be a priority. The Minister must determine what priority that will hold in the whole scheme of weed control.

The third area I would suggest to the Minister is beautification, because after all this is part and parcel of a weed-control programme. It is hoped that the weeds can be replaced with plant life that is more pleasing to the eye and more beneficial from an aesthetic point of view than the weeds themselves.

I can't help but echo the sentiments of the Member who preceded me in this debate with respect to the greatest offender when it comes to the proliferation of weeds throughout the country, and that has got to be, without a doubt, the Crown itself, be it through its own agencies or through Crown land that is just not looked after. These areas become infested with weeds and as a result go to seed and are broadcast by the wind and end up miles and miles away infesting many acres of prime farmland and municipalities.

I can give you an example of the problem we have now with the dandelion in northern B.C. It's a weed that grows very prolifically and yet because it has not been kept under control, it has completely inundated hundreds and hundreds of acres of what should be good pasture land. There must be a way to control that, and control it on an inexpensive basis.

One of the great reasons we have that proliferation of that particular variety of weed is the fact that road allowances and rights-of-way for power utilities, and so on, have not been kept in shape and weeds on Crown land have been allowed to go to seed. So government weeds have gone to seed, Mr. Minister.

I would hope in this extremely complex problem, because I recognize — as the Minister must — that you do have conflicting forces when you try to control weed infestation in the province, that the Minister would establish priorities as to what the thrust of the programme will really be. I'm glad to see the Minister attempt to control the situation because it is a problem throughout all of British Columbia. I would hope that in the allocation of cost he will take due consideration for those people whose property may be infested through no fault of their own.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm constrained, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words for the weeds. I think they've received pretty shoddy treatment on behalf of all of the Members of the House this afternoon.

I want to make that point because the government is patently advertising its lack of knowledge, and its uncertainty, and its hesitation in this legislation, because in this bill, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't even say and apparently doesn't even know what a weed is because they're not defined.

Yet the government gives itself power to destroy weeds or control weeds, or have committees dealing with them, or agreements concerning them. But then we come to a blank wall and they only say that the cabinet shall designate what a noxious weed is.

So, we have the farm assurance Act by regulation; we've got housing by regulation; we've got consumerism and mining by regulation and petroleum by regulation. Now we're going to have weeds by regulation. And the only certainty is that regulations in this province are growing like weeds and there's going to be no end to it.

I suppose in a fit of pique the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) could designate some of the noisier Members of the opposition as noxious weeds and then put them under these great controls that you have here.

So I say for the unnamed and unknown weeds in the province…. And we must remember that in one point in time, things such as corn and potatoes and hops and spinach — the Member over here was talking about dandelions which certainly have a rather interesting and jolly secondary use — all of these things at one time were considered weeds. So I say for the unnamed weeds, near weeds and some borderline vegetables who might be indeed trembling in their roots, that the very first thing that the government should do is start off in this statute with a basic definition of what is — not leave it all up to the weed wisdom or lack thereof of the cabinet. But

[ Page 763 ]

if you do, Mr. Minister, I will assure you of one thing, that you will be judged by your weeds. (Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, the topic has been canvassed quite well, but I thought I would like to throw in a few comments in regard to the control and how difficult it's going to be for the Minister and for the Crown to control these weeds.

The area where I live, the Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap, extends for 200 miles and it's very, very sparsely populated. I think for that regional district to take on the control of any noxious weed would be almost prohibitive.

The Members from both sides of the House have stated that they feel the Crown has been one of the worst offenders. I'll have to say that this is so in my riding.

Highway department: many roads they don't get around for two or three years to cut with the mower or to spray or take any other type of action to do away with the weeds.

The CPR has a right-of-way right through my property and in the 10 years I've lived there they have never once controlled the weeds in that area.

I can just see nothing but problems when we come to the enforcement stage. I think that the Crown is going to find itself in many, many embarrassing situations in the future when they try to enforce regulations on a property owner and then they have property that's nearby that isn't being controlled. I just hope that the Minister has some answers in regard to how this is going to be accomplished because I can see nothing but problems in this regard in the future.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I too am concerned about some of the powers this Act is going to give to committees of a given council in the province to carry out the control of weeds. I don't think that a large section of our population is aware of the kinds of dangers inherent in the use of some of these chemicals. I think that committees of councils certainly wouldn't have the background information necessary in order to determine what kinds of solutions they could bring forward to the control of weeds in their given area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's my feeling that there just hasn't been enough research done to determine what are the long-range effects of the use of chemicals such as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and a whole list of chemicals that are currently being used.

When we have a committee set up by a council to deal with this problem, they will of course seek out information in order to inform themselves about the various kinds of chemicals that are available and what dangers might be inherent in them. Now, the source of information which is most readily available about the various chemicals which are used is available through the manufacturers of the chemical itself. This is where they're going to get their information from.

There are booklets put out by all these chemical companies assuring us that these chemicals are safe, that they are effective, and that it is that chemical that those committees should be using. This worries me, and I think we must use caution here in assigning to these committees the powers to determine how the weeds in their particular area should be controlled.

I would encourage the Minister and his department to get involved in research to determine how these weeds can be controlled without the use of poisonous chemicals.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak very briefly on this, although I represent a riding which has very few weeds and those that are there are controlled in the old-fashioned method, that is picking them out by hand.

I too am very concerned, really, about the fact that this bill has not outlined how the weeds are going to be controlled and the number of statements that have been made about the use of chemicals. I'm of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a committee which consists of a councilor, a ratepayer and a member of the Department of Agriculture is just not good enough in terms of making decisions about using chemicals, I would like to suggest to the Minister that, if possible, two amendments be done before the bill goes into third reading. One of them has to do with the business of making a very broad statement about the use of chemicals in the control of noxious weeds. What we have learned from experience is that sometimes the control is more noxious than the weeds themselves, and that they actually do more damage than weeds do.

Now I recognize that in most instances weeds do have to be controlled, but I would very much like to see a situation whereby some consultation is done with the Health department before any of these chemicals are used, and that the Health department have the power to veto, if necessary, the use of the chemical chosen to control the weeds. I'm concerned about human beings in that respect.

Environmentalists should also be involved and have some kind of input into decisions about the use of chemicals, in terms of destroying not just the weeds, but the other plants and animals who have to share this planet with us.

So I'm going to support this bill, Mr. Speaker, although I am very uncomfortable with it, and I certainly hope….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm speaking in support of the bill that I hope it will be after it's been amended —

[ Page 764 ]

with the two recommendations that I'm making to the Minister.

MR. WALLACE: I will be very brief. I think we support the bill in principle, but we are also very concerned at the lack of detail and the general broad authority given to the cabinet to decide what is a noxious weed and to write regulations which the cabinet, in its wisdom — possibly well-intentioned wisdom — might well be misdirected, or ill-informed on a subject such as this. We think there's real danger, in passing a bill of this nature, in giving that much authority for the matter to be dealt with by regulation.

I missed the earlier part of the debate and I don't know whether comment has been made on the hearings which the Minister of Health set up on the use of pesticides and herbicides. I would think that somewhere included in this bill there should be some clear-cut authority given to the Minister, or some clear-cut limitation of his powers, in the use of the methods which might be recommended by regulation to control the weeds, particularly in relation to some of the chemicals which the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned.

There is no question that our knowledge of the far-reaching effects of some of these chemicals is incomplete. It's somewhat like the nature of wondering how bad the radiation from nuclear waste might be in a power plant; you get as many opinions as there are stars in the sky. I think, in relation to these chemicals, that there is indeed a need for a great deal of research. Until we have that research done I think it's very dangerous to leave this much power in the hands of cabinet. I'm particularly referring to section 5.

I remember well, when I served as an alderman in Oak Bay, that now and then we would have problems with this one homeowner creating a problem. The problem was to decide what power council had to deal with it. Therefore, I commend in principle the idea that this bill gives municipalities some clear-cut authority to do certain things, but I would also agree that it's too vague — and here we are again, complaining about vague legislation.

Where we're dealing with something which, as the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) very clearly put it, the treatment might be worse than the disease, I think there's a real need in this bill for a few amendments. Maybe even, Mr. Speaker, through you, the Minister might consider listening to these comments — which I think have been constructive — from his own Members, his own backbenchers.

This might again be a bill which could very reasonably be held up for six months and brought back in the spring session with some of the safeguards which several Members have commented upon, and which I certainly feel are not at all unreasonable.

Interruption.

MR. WALLACE: This party would certainly like to welcome back the lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and hope that she is fully recovered from her illness; and our best wishes.

The lady Member may feel also, after being away a while and coming back in and finding that we're debating weeds, that really there's nothing changed around here.

But seriously, I wonder if the Minister would give some thought to these comments from all sides of the House that there is a need for more knowledge, more information, some safeguards in relation to the use of chemicals, and whether perhaps he might not give consideration to withdrawing the bill and re-introducing it at the spring session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise to debate the Weed Control Act. When it first came in it was, I thought, a reference to the opposition, but the Minister assured me that it wasn't.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to repeat what has been said before, and that is that we are giving a tremendous amount of power to the cabinet. For example, tobacco is a noxious weed, in my opinion. It's a noxious weed, definitely, no question about it.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Minister is trying to give me some information on whether it be noxious or not, but this is precisely the problem. He's not quite sure whether it's controlled under this Act or not.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He is? Tobacco is not a noxious weed, but it could become one simply by…and perhaps when my hon. friends to my right and my hon. friend behind me are in power, we will declare it to be a noxious weed. That's the type of power we should not be given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Minister of Health whether it is or not.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It doesn't even grow here and he knows it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, oh. Well, the Minister of Health has said that tobacco doesn't grow here. I can assure him that some people grow it, and I can assure him that other people grow marijuana in British Columbia. Now is that or is that not a noxious weed, under the…?

[ Page 765 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't hear the Minister; would he speak up? Louder, louder.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister's voice has left him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is out of his place and should not be speaking when he's out of his place. Indeed, another Member has the floor. Would the Hon. Member please address the House and not an individual Minister?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're perfectly correct, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing the Minister, but I was asking what might constitute a noxious weed under this cabinet's decision. We've seen confusion between two Ministers who have been commenting across the floor as to whether tobacco or marijuana or some other product might be noxious. Now I'm not sure that it is. I don't know. I'm not an expert in these matters and I don't smoke either one. I perhaps am in no position to judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which would you prefer?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question has come: which would I prefer? Well, that's a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't possibly dream of answering. But, what I'm suggesting is that we don't have in this Act any suggestion as to how the cabinet might act in this very interesting area of noxious weeds. I think we should have it. I think we see here, carried to its ultimately absurd extreme, the type of grasping powers which this cabinet is taking to itself. They want to wait and decide themselves what might be noxious or otherwise. Who knows, maybe there are flowers, as was mentioned by my hon. friend the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), which are classified as weeds. What we on this side of the House might regard as attractive flowers the cabinet might regard as a noxious weed.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) points out that with their taste perhaps many nice flowers, even roses, might be declared to be noxious weeds. And it's true; they could be declared noxious weeds under these regulations that might come down from the cabinet. Now we're concerned about this legislation, as well as other legislation. Perhaps, because it can be done with a certain bit of levity in this Act, we would Re to point out that taking away definitions and putting definitions of Acts in the hands of the cabinet, no matter what the Act might be, is a dangerous thing and a precedent that we don't like.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to point out that on the question of voting for this bill in principle we feel that we should perhaps reciprocate to the government Members' split vote yesterday. I and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) will be voting against the bill and my two friends on either side of me will be voting for the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a free vote when it comes to noxious weeds in the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I recall that when this debate started the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) forecast that there would be some trouble explaining this programme to the environmentalists. Then the various Members in the House proceeded to give some evidence that there would indeed be questions raised by environmentalists. He felt that to get around this problem there would have to be a good deal of information go out on the use of herbicides — the justification for using herbicides under certain circumstances. These would have to be discussed quite widely with the public.

Really, what we are doing in this legislation, in a large measure, is taking this sort of a programme out to the public as opposed to having it strictly within the hands of the Department of Agriculture, as has been the case up to now. We are saying in this legislation that we would welcome participation and discussions of this problem — that is, the problem of controlling weeds, the extent of the problem, bow the weeds should be controlled, whether, indeed, they need to be controlled, what are weeds in different areas of the province — taking all of these questions out into the local areas, out into the regional districts, the municipalities, and inviting them to participate in meaningful discussions about this question. So we are, in part, leading into the programme that he recommends. We are trying to involve the public in discussions of the weed control programme.

[ Page 766 ]

As mentioned the reluctance of chemical companies to develop herbicides is. that they run into difficulty in getting people to use these herbicides. They are always concerned that perhaps they won't be able to sell them when they do produce them.

I think it is well — and some of the Members have voiced this — that they do have some, if not reluctance, at least have in mind what effect these herbicides are having on the environment as opposed to that particular portion of the environment that they are intended to affect.

For example, a particular chemical might be produced to control one very particular weed. And unless they can consider everything else that is growing where that weed is growing, everything that is consuming that weed as well as everything else that is growing around there, the fact that the chemical they are using may or may not drift with the wind, or may be retained in the soil for a long time or may be washed into waterways, all of these things have to be given very serious consideration. While I wouldn't want them to stop working, wouldn't want them to stop researching, I would want them to have much more concern about the total environment than some of them have had in the past.

When we are thinking about research into herbicides, we recognize that presently we are using herbicides, of one kind or another, all over the world. We should be trying to develop herbicides that are much more benign when we consider their total effect as opposed to some of the ones that are currently in use.

Even conceding then that in some circumstances we must use herbicides, there is need for a great deal more research to try to find better types, better classes and better specific herbicides than the ones that we have right now.

You suggested — I think perhaps you are mistaken; I am not sure — as you neared your closing statement, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) would close the debate. I'm not sure whether you thought he would use herbicides to settle labour strikes, or just exactly what you had in mind — or whether it was some kind of a Freudian slip. But I think perhaps you did expect me to close the debate, indeed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, I rather thought so.

The Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) suggested that the control should not go entirely to local people and I believe it was the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who pointed out that the committee is not entirely a local committee — one member selected from among the councillors, one local ratepayer — I'm not sure why they say ratepayer rather than resident; I think perhaps we are slipping into the old system — but a ratepayer, and a third one appointed by the Department of Agriculture, which, in some people's minds, does not give protection to the environment.

I am not ready to confess, at this time when there are certain people who are self-professed environmentalists who know everything there is to know about the environment, that everyone else who is concerned, working with the environment on a day-to-day basis, in different ways working with it, is wrong. They set themselves up as individual experts; they are experts simply because they say so.

I think we are all concerned with the environment I think we are all much more concerned with the environment today than we were yesterday, yesterday much more than we were a year ago and a year ago very much more than we were 10 years ago All of us are becoming increasingly aware of the environment, of the effect of what we are doing to the environment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, all of us except two Members of the Liberal Party, I understand, or just one?

In any case, all of us should be much more aware and most of us are much more aware of what we are doing to the environment. But then, simply by existing we are affecting the environment, so I think we have to be concerned about minimizing the deleterious effect on the environment insofar as we can.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as I know the hearings were really on something beyond this but certainly this will be affected by those hearings There is no question about it. Again, it is one of the points I have down here and I will come to it.

I've forgotten right now who mentioned it, but there is a weed control programme. Right now the Department of Agriculture has authority to control weeds under some circumstances and is indeed controlling weeds in certain circumstances. We're not really suggesting in this legislation that they are going to go out on a wide programme of spraying to try to hurry up and control all the weeds in the province before they're stopped because of some hearings Nothing like that at all. What we are really doing is saying it's time we involved the whole community in this question of weed control so that everybody is more aware of what is going on and everybody has more of a hand in it.

Some people are suggesting that we should back away from this and one of the Members said that until we do the research we really shouldn't continue with spraying programmes. I think the Member really

[ Page 767 ]

didn't mean it the way I took it down, because if there is anything that we learn from research, as far as I know, it's that we need a good deal more of research. Almost everything we learn opens up not just one new avenue, but many new avenues for continuing investigations.

We will never get to the point in time when we finish research. The more research we do, the more need for research. So we can't wait until research is finished; it's a continuing process. In the meantime we do have to take action, in some cases, to protect the environment.

It's not always a case of herbicides. I believe I mentioned in the Legislature on a previous occasion — if not, it was outside — the use of insects, for example, and the very successful, in a limited area if you like, use of the cinnabar moth to control the tansy ragwort in the Nanaimo area. This was a programme, which was really promoted by one person who, in spite of his efforts, was ignored, by the government of the day. At first he was ignored even by the universities of the day. Gradually he got support from the universities but I don't think he ever did get support from the government.

There was one particular area where the cinnabar moth was introduced three years ago that I know of and last year was heavily infested with the tansy ragwort when it was in bloom. This year I didn't see a single blossom on a patch of about 15 acres. Now whether it will continue that way, I don't know. It might have been just an ideal sort of winter for the grubs to live. But in that particular case insect control is obviously very promising.

There are other means of control. It's not always herbicides. Where we have to use herbicides, we look for better herbicides. We should always be looking for some means of controlling them other than by using herbicides.

With respect to amending the legislation to include a broad statement about chemicals, without seeing the wording I can't really say whether it's an amendment that I would support. To me it sounds like the sort of thing that everybody would generally favour, a "motherhood" statement about the use of chemicals. But what really would we be adding to the legislation unless we are prepared to start defining the chemicals, the use of them, where they may be used, and the different areas of the province where different chemicals would be used?

The question is: what is a noxious weed? Well in some areas of the province some plants are weeds and in other areas they are crops. There is quite a bill of variance that way, It is pretty hard, in my mind, to come up with a broad statement that would be applicable in legislation such as this.

With respect to involving the Department of Health and environmentalists, I'm positive that as the work of the committee that is looking into this question progresses and when that report does come out, there will be changes in this programme. In the meantime, we feel this is an improvement over what we have had so far.

With respect to those who had concern about the fact that the government is the greatest offender, I would simply suggest to them that they read section 1, interpretations, in particular the definition of the word "municipality."

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 71, Weed Control Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 71 read a second time and referred to committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. COCKE: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder if the acting House Leader could inform us when we'll be having the private Members' business which is normally considered on Thursdays?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the House gave leave to continue. On a motion from the House Leader the House, at its convening, went ahead with public bills and orders.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have no objections, Mr. Speaker. It's perfectly correct what the Minister says. I am simply making an inquiry of the acting House Leader — and now I am glad to see the actual House Leader has come in — as to when we will revert. We understood, at least I understood, that perhaps there was some item of pressing business which the government wished to introduce, some reason for it. The normal procedure is, of course, for private Members' business to occur on Thursday afternoons and I know I and my hon. friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) would both be interested to know what is the government's intention regarding the remainder of business for the day and whether or not we will be discussing private Members' business?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had more private Member's days than at any other time in the history of this House and we have a great deal of government business to get on with. Depending on how we proceed, perhaps we can get some time in on private Members' day. I certainly hope so, but the House has instructed us to continue on public bills and orders and I think we should continue.

Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 768 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CORRECTIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): 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 24, An Act to Amend the Corrections Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REAL ESTATE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 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 29, An Act to Amend the Real Estate Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

PERSONAL INFORMATION REPORTING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 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 63, Personal Information Reporting Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Corporation Capital Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN SETTLEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22, Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 769 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair, Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Settlement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
INCOME TAX ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive 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 23, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COLOURED
GASOLINE TAX ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Under this section, it appears to me that the definition of "gallon" for natural gas is put in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, similarly with liquefied petroleum gas. I wonder why this is not being done. I wonder if the Minister responsible for this bill perhaps could tell us why it hasn't been done in terms of a calorific value or some other?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Calorific value — in other words a direct standard, so the equivalent energy for a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of natural gas can be equated. The problem as I see it is that when you are changing the definitions of energy in this way by regulation, I think it could lead to a fair amount of difficulty, just as it would be difficult, for example, if we had the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council altering the amount of gasoline that you bought at a pump, saying, "Okay, so much gasoline which yesterday was called five gallons, tomorrow will be called seven."

It's suggested also to me by my hon. friend that perhaps tomorrow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may have 14 inches to the foot or something of that nature. It's just a question of definition. I'd like to know why it's necessary to have this type of power, part of the definition over energy, in the hands of the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council declaring a foot to be 14 inches tomorrow. It may be that we may receive that advice from him, but I think it would be rejected by most of us.

As far as the definition of a gallon goes, it is the most appropriate at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like perhaps for the Minister to read this a little closer. The fact is that I gave the example of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council altering the number of inches in a foot simply to indicate what could take place under this Act with respect to natural gas and petroleum gas — liquefied petroleum gas. I would think it would be possible to have an actual, set calorific value or cubic capacity, or something of that nature, which would be in the definition section.

The whole purpose of definition sections, as I see them, for bills of this nature, are for the purpose of clarity so that the public knows, and so they don't have to constantly go off to find changing regulations or changing Orders-in-Council which, as I mentioned before, are not the easiest thing in the world for the general public to become aware of.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's concern but the only opposition we've had to the bill from the industry is not so much the definition of a gallon, as they anticipate it will be, as the opposition to the imposition of the tax itself, For years the industry has not been taxed in terms of fuel it's been using to man its pumps. Now we have a measurement that they have not disputed and we have not disputed. It's a form, an approach, a brand new tax, and I've been advised that there is no problem in approaching it on this basis.

Now if there is a problem, I'll be the first to inform the Members that the formula we've agreed to at this point is not workable. But I have not had that advice from my technical staff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Minister, the

[ Page 770 ]

fact is that the industry have their views, we have ours. I don't in any way wish to speak for them; I have not consulted them on this definition section. We're on the principle of definitions. You'll note, Mr. Minister, that the question of payment of tax which you talk about comes up in section 5 and perhaps we'll have something to say in that section. But on Section 1…

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't anticipate any problem on section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …if your technical people have said that it has to be done this way, I'm just curious. Perhaps you haven't asked them; I don't know. Just tell us, though, what the situation is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't have the technical knowledge necessary, you know. We must rely on technical people. My advice is that this is the way to go. They have the concept of a definition of gallon in terms of the gas itself. There is another problem related to it and that is that the industry uses raw natural gas, and that is a variable degree of energy content. Some allowance has to be made on that basis.

It's my understanding that the technical people are deliberately trying to find a common base of definition. I confess that my experience in natural gas is in no way related to this particular type of natural gas. As a result, I plead ignorance and hope that the technical people will be able to define this kind of natural gas.

Certainly the technical people have not been able to define my type of natural gas in the past, nor would I ask them to. Well, that's a definition that's open to a matter of opinion. On this particular tax we need something more than a matter of opinion. You know, I can only rely on my technical people.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I have an indication of why the price of 3 cents a gallon was chosen by the Minister? It would seem like the second time this year we've amended the coloured gasoline tax. Why don't we get rid of the wretched thing or get it on some definite basis? I find it awfully serious that we have here a set 3 cents a gallon in the bill, and yet we don't have a definition of the amount that might be in a gallon. I wonder why the 3 cents has been chosen. Would the Minister like to comment on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a standard 3-cent charge and the other is an exemption for those people who are in the categories defined — farming and fishing. The rest remains, as it's always been, a 3-cent tariff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just because it's been that way for….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, yes. It's just like income tax — because it's been that way since 1922 it's always that way. I noticed they just changed it, I hope it doesn't take us that long. There'll be changes.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive 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 25, An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

SESSIONAL REPORTS SUSPENSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, on section 1, it would seem that in the bill this is the only section on which we can discuss this particular piece of legislation. The purpose of the bill would be to suspend reports between sessions of the Legislature.

I would wonder if it wouldn't be thought that the suspension of reports could be somewhat dangerous and that the Act should perhaps provide that a report or a document be placed before or tabled in the Legislature if it is in session. In this way, if the House is in session and a report was required on an interim basis, it could be tabled at that time with the House. What it says in the bill, as I interpret it, is that the need to table that report on an interim basis would be suspended, if I read this bill correctly.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to do away with the provision that any Act stipulates to table a report

[ Page 771 ]

on the operations of the Act at the session that this bill is passed. In short, when we want to give permission to a Minister to delay until the spring session the tabling of his report, then we have to pass this Act. We can't not do anything until this Act is passed.

In other words, it's a rather complicated way of getting out of the box we've got ourselves in by having two sessions. Now Acts throughout the statutes are sprinkled with the words "and the reports shall be tabled within 10 days following the commencement of the session." That will have to be done every year. But obviously you can't do it, nor would I think the House require it to be done, twice a year. Therefore, whenever we have a spring and a fall session — at the fall session likely — then a similar Act to this will be passed at each occasion.

If the House feels that it's not getting the information, then I'm sure that it will make itself abundantly clear to the Treasury benches and will indeed stop that bill going through, or certainly make enough noise on second reading that you will embarrass the devil out of the Treasury benches.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, could it not be a suggestion that rather than the full reports being tabled, that an interim report could be tabled with the House at the sessions other than the regular January session that we have each year? This would keep us on a more current basis, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HALL: As I said in second reading, we've got question periods, we've got the written questions, we've got the tabling of documents, and we've got an abundance of information flowing into this chamber onto the Clerks' table the like of which hasn't been seen before. I would not like, however, to see an imposition on the various departments to, in effect, provide two annual reports, Interim reports are another matter altogether; but you're going to get no less information by passing this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I raise the question of why you did not incorporate a specific reference to the "spring sessions" so that we would not have to put in an Act of this nature time after time; in other words, to have it: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, where an Act provides that a report or document be placed before or tabled in the Legislature if it is in session or within a specified period of time after the commencement of a session"…"such provisions are deemed to refer to the spring session, unless otherwise commented."

I'm not putting this forward as a formal amendment; I did ask you in second reading why this approach had not been adopted. I wonder if you would indicate why it hasn't and whether my wording is better. I could submit it as a formal amendment.

HON. MR. HALL: I think the sentiments behind your remarks are those that the government will be operating upon. However, because at the time that this bill was being prepared there were three departmental Acts being prepared and there are some shuffles of responsibility that are going to take place in the next six or seven months, our legislative counsel's advice was that until there is a statute revision, until there is a government reorganization Act, if indeed we follow the federal pattern before us, this will have to suffice until we reach that happy day when we can perhaps address ourselves in a longer debate to the question of the statute review — where this thing can be extracted and put into some sort of form that you are suggesting.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: 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 20, Sessional Reports Suspension Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills in the hands of private Members.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AUDITOR GENERAL

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) adjourned the debate very quickly.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I say you adjourned it very quickly.

MR. GARDOM: Do you recall that?

MR. SPEAKER: I do indeed.

[ Page 772 ]

MR. GARDOM: You've got a good memory, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you wish to withdraw it?

MR. GARDOM: No, not me. No, indeed. Mr. Speaker, Crown corporations in this province are growing like Topsy. We have the Insurance Corporation and….

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I could draw your attention to….

MR. GARDOM: May I finish the sentence?

HON. MR. HALL: I said I'd be swifter on my feet than last time. Can I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to section 2: the question of the salary to be paid?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say, Hon. Member, that I'm disappointed; I wanted to hear you speak.

I must, under the rules, as the Hon. Member knows, find that any invasion of the Auditor General's rights and the charging anything to consolidated revenue, as the Hon. Member proposes to do in the bill, would be in direct conflict to the provision of standing order 67 and to our other prohibitions that are contained in our constitution. I would therefore have to reluctantly rule it out of order.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: I'm off the air. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm very reluctant to do that too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there was quite a lengthy discussion of that bill at a previous time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we have to give others a turn.

Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

SENIOR CITIZENS HOME REPAIR
ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). Welcome back.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my opportunity to speak will be longer than the last Member's because there's no way in this bill that I would even wish to suggest that there's an imposition of an expenditure on the part of the Crown.

What I do wish to do is bring to the attention of the Crown the plight of elderly citizens in this province who, along with the thrust of governments right across Canada, are involved in programmes to keep them in their own homes as long as possible through health care and through social services and municipal services. But these homes are faced with considerable problems in the form of high costs of maintenance and high cost of repairs.

A small paint job in Vancouver on a 25-ft. lot home can cost as much as $300, $400 and $500. What I would wish to draw to the attention of the government is the need for the government to take under advisement a programme whereby assistance would be given to elderly citizens, anyone over 65 in British Columbia, to have assistance in repairing their homes, whether it's front steps, wiring, plumbing, painting, re-roofing.

I hope through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) will take this into consideration and that this will be part of their legislative programme before the end of this session — if this bill in itself is not acceptable.

HON. MR. HALL: May I say, first of all, that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) addressed herself eloquently to this problem as she did before. We welcome her back in the House and hope that she is with us for the rest of the session and that we'll hear her from time to time…not all the time, but from time to time. Thank goodness we got some of the agricultural bills through while she was away.

However, Mr. Speaker, section 3 does indicate that the Minister is going to make some grants of one sort or another. As I suspect that they're going to be financial, I suggest that we've got to look at standing order 67; and I draw your attention to them.

MR. SPEAKER: I must confess that Bill 27 does have a duty cast upon a Minister and once the duty is cast upon him, what may appear to be "may" in an Act very often becomes "shall". If a bill were passed on that ground, everyone would be entitled to demand that the Minister carry out the provisions of the Act. But since it doesn't have a message accompanying it, it would be out of order under standing order 67. So ruled.

HON. MR. HALL: May I call Bill 33, Mr. Speaker?

THE DRUG ADDICTION
REHABILITATION ACT, 1973

[ Page 773 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This bill has the main thrust to recognize that a drug addict is a medical and not a criminal problem.

The attempt of the bill is to provide some measure of positive, constructive, enlightened attitudes to the person who is a drug addict. Without attempting to go into great detail on this, the general principle is that this bill would provide the opportunity to respect a drug addict as a medical and physical problem in the same way that we regard people who temporarily, or permanently, are mentally disturbed, and, as such, are a danger to themselves or to others.

I wish to emphasize that the bill does not in any way intend to cover or excuse a person committing a crime, other than the existing crime of being in possession of drugs or being under the influence of drugs. But it is not intended, certainly, to excuse a person who has committed a crime — and putting him in a medical facility rather than jail. It is intended specifically to provide a medical type of facility for a person who, either of his own violation or because of the danger to himself or to society, should be given the benefit of detoxification and rehabilitation.

It also provides, the bill does, for the transfer of people from jail once their sentence is completed, to a medical facility in the hope that they will not just be put back on the street to repeat the problem which got them into jail in the first place.

It also represents a positive attempt to emphasize rehabilitation as a vital aspect of the whole drug problem and that detoxification in itself is not anything more than just a measure of emergency treatment of a sick person. The bill introduces, admittedly, an element we all would rather not see in society; that is the element of compulsion and the taking away of a person's freedom.

In my experience, Mr. Speaker, there are many parents or many young people who are really seeking this kind of avenue of approach to the problem. So often the avenue is thwarted because they are, in the first instance, placed in jail because, admittedly, they are in illegal possession of drugs. But I feel the present system, such as we have, has failed completely.

While one can debate this issue at great length — and I'm not proposing to do that — and while many different attitudes have been adopted in different countries, this seems to me to offer one partial solution to part of the problem. While it is in no way intended to be presented as an answer to the drug problem, it does offer the kind of facility and the kind of different approach to the problem which carries some measure of hope for the individual. It doesn't do it under our present system whereby the person who is addicted inevitably finishes up in jail and suffers many influences which hold little hope that he'll be any better when he leaves the jail.

With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just repeat that this is a positive, constructive approach whereby the affected person, either voluntarily or at the request of the parents or some person who is concerned about the addict's physical and mental state, would be given the opportunity to go to two medical people who would certify that, in their opinion, this person is sick, is a danger to his own health, and is a danger to others, and because of that rather strenuously severe situation, it would be justified to have him treated on a compulsory basis under the terms of this bill. I move second reading.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the Hon. Member. It is in essence a very interesting principle that he has in here. I think also, as I've said before in this House in respect to the Member, he has taken an interest and has a zeal about the need to deal with the drug-addiction programme that very few people have been able to demonstrate in the medical profession.

I am a little surprised, particularly by section 3, which is the very famous section that gets debated in this House about "awesome powers." A couple of days ago we had an "awesome powers" debate, and section 3 certainly is not in dissimilar language from all of the other sections where we were accused of having awesome powers in our legislation.

As the Member knows, there will be two conferences in the very near future. We have invited him to attend one which will deal with future policy in respect to the rehabilitation of drug addicts, both in alcohol and drugs.

The other thing is that we have been considering the question of compulsory treatment; we've been considering the whole question of declaring people addicts. But these are very serious problems in terms of the civil libertarian aspect and we have to have real concern about this. Nevertheless, we have covered in our discussions a wide-ranging number of alternatives.

The Hon. Member will have an opportunity next month to participate in the discussions with a team of people who have been very long in the field. Then, of course, there will be a further meeting at UBC at the end of November.

As you know, the drug commission itself has announced its first policy stance, a stance primarily on the prevention aspect. How this will be done is still under consideration because, as you know, all of the preventive aspects of drug addiction throughout the world have come under a cloud. We are now waiting a rather comprehensive report from UNESCO, who have been doing an analysis of all the programmes.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the bill has an interesting principle, but I am reminded that it does involve the expenditure of money and in that case it offends section 67. It's out of order.

[ Page 774 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The point is taken that the bill offends against standing order 67. I note that in sections 3, 5, 6, 9 and other sections, the expenditure of money is implicit in the requirements made of the superintendent of a facility and of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The duties cast upon public officials are such as to require funds to implement the purposes of the bill. Consequently, it would require a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I rule it out of order.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION ACT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to be very brief on this one, since the Provincial Secretary is looking very fidgety. (Laughter.)

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to preserve existing greenbelts in the form of golf courses. The amendment to the Assessment Equalization Act of the last session of the House removed the ceiling which had previously existed whereby assessments could not go up by more than 10 per cent in any one year. By removing that condition, it is now a fact that golf courses will be assessed at 50 per cent of market value, with a very steep resulting expense.

It should be made very clear that golf courses are not by any means the purview of the rich but of many citizens. As the Members must know, I have received copies of communications that have gone to various Members, especially the Member who is on the Sunshine Coast, the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead).

This does point out the fact that it is a very useful form of recreation employed by all ages and all income brackets. As I say, golf courses are a form of greenbelt which, in forms of legislation and in the words we've all spoken in this House, we all support. It's very obvious that many golf courses under this new legislation may well finish up being subdivided with the disappearance of the greenbelt.

Also, the amendment is meant to recognize that this government in its wisdom, with which we agree, has made many substantial financial grants available to other forms of recreation, provided these forms of recreation are available to the public. The amendment specifically spells out the fact that the amendment to this bill would relate only to those golfing facilities which would be open to the public.

In the greater Victoria area there are many tourists who visit this city. They are certainly, as are the members of the public, able to play on the golf courses in the greater Victoria area. This is a theme which has been mentioned by many of the letters that I've had from different golf courses around the province.

It's also a form of interest and recreation for younger people. Many of the golf clubs have a surprising large number of juniors, and I think that relates a little bit to the bill that I just tried to introduce a minute ago which dealt with drug addiction among young people. This kind of healthy, sporting enterprise is something which I think we should do nothing to discourage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it plain; this bill is not asking necessarily for fixed assessments. It's only asking that there be some measure of protection so that the assessment on golf courses will rise at a level with which the golfers can keep pace in terms of the cost of playing golf. I would move second reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is more content in the Member's speech to commend itself to support for this bill than there is in the actual fact, in terms of the public access to golf courses.

My experience on golf courses has been limited to caddying. I must say that some golfers are very, very cheap.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Not all of them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, and an interesting situation I found when I caddied on the Shaughnessy golf Courses was that the very wealthy were the cheapest tippers around. (Laughter.) But this is in no way to overcome that particular experience that I had at the Shaughnessy golf course. I left for other reasons which I will tell you privately.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What, Shaughnessy golf course? I left that golf course because of reasons I'll tell you privately. As a caddy I wasn't qualified to join. I could caddy but I couldn't join — but that's a separate matter. I didn't want to join anyway.

I haven't seen these golf courses make the kind of moves advocated by the Member, and I'd be willing to consider his bill in the future if I did. But I don't see golf courses going out of their way to setting aside areas for senior citizens for lawn bowling. I haven't seen them use their imagination to set aside putting greens for young people free of charge any time the local young people want to go in and use those putting greens.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not concerned about special rates, Mr. Member. If the Member wants to make the point, you'll certainly be entitled to make the point if you want to, except that I'm going to

[ Page 775 ]

adjourn the debate. (Laughter.) But I want to tell you that I haven't seen an aggressive move by such golf courses to reach out into the local community.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I've been around. We have a golf course in my constituency. I've been there on occasion and I've been in their sumptuous clubhouse where the Members pay a great deal of money to support it, but I'm telling you I don't see bowling greens for seniors, I don't see the aggressive move into the community to become community recreation facilities. If the golf courses want to expand over the next year into that area and say, "Well, certainly we want to prove to the Minister of Finance that we are this kind of community resource, " then I would more than welcome reconsideration. But right now….

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You're just against the wealthy.

HON. ?4R. BARRETT: Against the wealthy? I have absolutely nothing against the wealthy, because the more money they make, the more we tax them, Mr. Member. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being…. I'm not against the wealthy.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On behalf of the poor, I support the wealthy. (Laughter.) You figure that one out, Mr. Member.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if I see in a year's time the kind of sentiments coming into evidence by the Member, then We certainly will reconsider it. But until I see somebody….

MR. WALLACE: They're not all wealthy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know they are not all wealthy.

MR. WALLACE: Then why don't you give a break to those who are not wealthy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wish I could guarantee every sportsman a fish when he goes out to fish. I can't guarantee that. Everybody selects their form of entertainment. If you want to golf, you've got to pay your tariff.

Now, if you are going to be able to demonstrate to me in a year's time that golf courses have expanded their services to have bowling greens for senior citizens and training programmes to bring in all the people from the community — anybody, regardless of race, creed or colour…. Let me tell you, Mr. Member, there was a time in the history of this province when private golf courses excluded people because of race, creed or colour. There was a time.

MR. WALLACE: We're not in favour of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not in favour of it either, but I am just telling you that I would love to see them overcome their past, reach out into the community and provide these services, and then the government would be very willing to consider a break on taxes. In the meantime, because I don't see that evidence, I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HOSPITAL
INSURANCE ACT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill I introduced the last time we came into the House. It is simply an effort again to have the government keep one of its main election promises to provide B.C. hospital insurance coverage to patients in nursing homes.

I didn't think that this was one bill that would have to be reintroduced, and I am deeply disappointed because it is one of the main areas of social reform that I thought the government would move on very quickly.

The record is there that we have many people, elderly citizens, who presently require care which can only be provided in nursing homes and private hospitals. These patients are stuck with very substantial monthly bills. I had a very distressed elderly man phone me the other night. He and his wife are both in the hospital at $1,100 a month for him and his wife. I think that this is really something — the kind of imposition and concern and worry which elderly citizens should not have in their later years when they already have to battle against the ravages of old age.

This bill would simply bring under the Hospital Insurance Act coverage for citizens who, at the present time, require intermediate care and the kind of facility that I have mentioned. The Minister has previously spoken that this is something the government intends to do. He has also mentioned, and quite rightly so, that the cost is very difficult to measure. But as I mentioned in this House last night on another bill, it appears that the government is prepared to bring in certain measures of which the cost is not known and where we don't even have ballpark figures, whereas on this particular bill the Minister does have at least ballpark figures which he has discussed on the committee which travelled around the country, or at least which were discussed

[ Page 776 ]

at our final meeting.

Therefore I think that this is a very necessary bill. It is a desperate need on the part of many of our senior citizens who are in these facilities. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be delighted if I withdrew the bill and the government brought it in; this would be a very appropriate way to solve the problem.

Incidentally, I might say, with no disrespect to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that when I was deciding on the phraseology of this bill I looked back two or three years and this is very, very similar to the bill which the present Minister introduced as a private Member when he was in the opposition. One cannot doubt the intent of the government or the intent of this Minister. All I am saying in the form of this bill is, let's have it now — right now. I move second reading.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): I would just like to make a couple of points. The Member indicated that there were some ballpark figures around during the time the health and welfare committee was moving around, and I agree — there were ballpark figures. I thought that I had convinced that Member that they were just that — ballpark, and most of them over the fence.

In any event, the Member also realizes that this is our direction. But we cannot create, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the expectation of delivery of this service until we can accommodate that. You saw what happened to the previous government. You saw that government go into extended care. Then they said, "Okay, you can have extended care providing you can get a bed, but you can't have a bed." Now, we have to somehow or other facilitate this before we create that expectation. We are still short something in the order of 1,200 beds in extended care, let alone intermediate care.

We are moving as quickly as we can into intermediate care and, Mr. Speaker, if that Member would care to withdraw this bill I won't ask you to declare it out of order which it is. Would you care to withdraw it, Mr. Member?

MR. WALLACE: Not unless you bring it in.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the bill be declared out of order due to the expenditure of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, Hon. Members, I think that there can't be any quarrel on the fact that it is out of order under standing order 67. I think the Hon. Member in charge of the bill would agree that the provisions of section 3 that he proposes are clearly out of order. The bill would not really be implemented without them. In consequence, I must find it out of order under our standing orders.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Factories Act, standing on the order paper in my name.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE FACTORIES ACT

Mr. McClelland moves introduction and first reading of Bill 78 intituled An Act to Amend the Factories Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 78 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in view of the very great progress this afternoon in passing a similar bill, I would ask leave of the House to withdraw the bill standing in my name on the order paper: Bill 6, the Credit Information Protection Act.

Leave granted.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we passed resolution 7 under which I was directed to table with the Legislature the details and guidelines of a proposal made by the British Columbia Ferry Authority to the Seattle firm of Nikum and Spalding seeking the design for a new ferry.

The only piece of correspondence available that I have was made between the ferry service and Nikum and Spalding Associates that really wouldn't provide the information, so I would ask leave of the House to table this one document along with the letter from Nikum and Spalding, which I think makes this clear to the Members.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I promised the House a statement on the recording equipment and sound reinforcement equipment that is used in the House, in view of the request from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

The question is raised as a matter of privilege by an Hon. Member as to the sound equipment in the chamber which is controlled by a cut-off switch. An incident was referred to in committee. The authority

[ Page 777 ]

for the use of this equipment was challenged as breach of privilege. Although matters which take place in committee are not referred to the Speaker for his opinion, the subject of the equipment itself and its use certainly may be raised.

The chamber's sound reinforcement system was installed about 1953 — the people who put it in are not quite sure, but they say 1953 — by stringing microphones from wires above the Members' seats. The capability for selecting the individual microphone was built into the system in 1956. Since then, only one microphone is able to operate at one time on each side of the House. Indeed, when the console operator activates one microphone, it automatically cuts off any other on that bank of buttons. The only exception are the microphones for the Speaker and the Chairman which are never off unless so intended by that presiding officer.

There are two cancel buttons in the console, one labelled government side, the other opposition side. The opposition cancel button is very badly worn. (Laughter.) I hasten to add it was not put in that condition during the life of this parliament.

Since 1956, when a Member interrupts another Member who is speaking on a point of order, his or her microphone is activated by the operator upon the Speaker or Chairman recognizing the Member who has risen. At that point, the Member who was speaking must be seated until the point of order is dealt with.

When the Speaker stands, both cancel buttons are pushed by the operator for each side of the House. The operator, therefore, has always been guided by the presiding officer. I think that duty should not be cast on an employee as has been done since 1956 but should be done by the presiding officer. As May, 15th edition, says, page 225, concerning the Chair:

"In debate all speeches are addressed to him and he calls upon Members to speak — a choice which is now never disputed. When he rises to preserve order or to give a ruling on a doubtful point he must always be heard in silence and no Member may stand when the Speaker is on his feet."

Page 227, the same edition:

"The Speaker has the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the chamber on behalf of the House of Commons. He appoints the printers of the Journals, he is responsible, through the Clerk of the House, for the accuracy of the minutes of proceedings, and, through an editor whom he appoints, for the Official Report of Debates. Where the record of debates is by tape recorder" — and this is the important reason I cite this — "the sound system has to be closely controlled to ensure accuracy and clarity."

That is true in our Assembly so far as recording debates is concerned and is set out in standing order 129(1), adopted by the House on April 2, 1970.

The recording of debates is vested in the Speaker under that standing order and the system is under his "control and custody." The debates are to be recorded by means of magnetic-tape devices. "When any question arises…as to the words spoken by a member…Mr. Speaker may use the magnetic-tape record as evidence of the actual words spoken…."

He is charged with the duty of obtaining accurate records of debate. Obviously, it is essential to the recording of debates that the Member who has a right to the floor have his words recorded and it is the duty of the Speaker to see that that right is not impeded by an offending Member, Hansard cannot do an accurate job, as required by standing order 129, and record anything if two persons can be recognized at the same time on competing microphones. Only a confused and garbled noise will be found on the tapes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not unusual.

MR. SPEAKER: It's pretty tough on the Hansard crew. Also, when the Speaker rises to call anyone to order, his words must be clearly audible for the record and to the offender.

Since it would be unjust to name a Member who was speaking down the chamber and was oblivious to the fact that the Speaker was standing — I'm very aware of such an occasion — I can find no prima facie breach of privilege involved in terminating by the cancel button the disorderly conduct of a Member who fails to take his seat and preserve his silence if ordered to do so. Indeed, such disorderly conduct constitutes a breach of the privileges of all other Members. The Speaker has a duty, and so does the Chairman, to preserve order and to enforce obedience to the rules of the House. And if this practice is not continued, we might as well discontinue Hansard.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make a second observation here, dealing again with the method within the House of recording or not recording what's said in the House. I noticed that when the Chairman addressed you on Tuesday, dealing with this point of privilege which was raised by myself, he informed you of the point of privilege. I'm about 25 feet away, I suppose, from where he was making his statements, yet we don't find any record of that in Hansard. I wonder why that is not recorded in Hansard.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that there was any steps taken by anyone to keep it out of Hansard, but it should have been in Hansard. What the Chairman said — and his only words were these, Mr. Speaker — is this: "Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again." And he

[ Page 778 ]

carried on after that and that is not recorded in Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only assume that the unfortunate thing is that he speaks from a place where there is no microphone in front of me and, if this isn't swung in his direction, it dies rapidly.

MR. GARDOM: How was it that the microphone was so capable of picking up the first part of his remarks and, was incapable of picking up the second part of his remarks?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a mystery I'll inquire into.

MR. GARDOM: I think so, and I think if we need another microphone for the purpose of the Chairman reporting to the Speaker, we should have that.

But I still think, with every respect, Mr. Speaker, that you have not indicated, at least to myself, the rule that is in effect in this House permitting the installation and the operations of the buttons of which you are speaking. You have referred to a practice but not to any rule or any right or any authority given to the House to have this practice in effect. It is my respectful submission, until such time as the House reaches a decision that although this may be a practice of the House, it should be discontinued.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I agree with the Member. I don't know; there has been no citing of authority to even have microphones in the chamber at all. There's a presumption that the microphones belong here because of Hansard tapes; when I first arrived in this chamber we did have microphones.

But if there is no authority in this chamber to have those microphones — and we have indeed been going for some years without consent of the House to have those microphones — then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you take the microphones out of here. You must remember that it will be only of limited benefit. (Laughter.) I didn't name names.

But, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, if the House wished to entertain a temporary motion to continue with the mikes until some House committee agrees on how they should be handled, of course, that would be a good approach too.

MR. GARDOM: In response, if I may, to the remarks made by the Premier in very good humour, nobody is suggesting taking out the microphones. The only thing that we're suggesting should be taken out is the capacity of the Speaker, without the direction of the House or any authority, to have the control of eliminating a Member's speaking capacity, which he now has.

A Speaker has adequate powers, Mr. Premier, within the existing rules. If he happens to state that a Member is carrying on in a disorderly manner, the Speaker has every power within the existing rules to bring that Member to task. But that does not include the subjective right for the Speaker to press a button and cut that person off the air.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order raised, I would indicate to the Hon. Member that it's very clear in standing order 129, passed in 1970, that the debate of the Legislative Assembly in the House and all committees of the House be recorded by means of magnetic tape recorders or other suitable recording devices. Now, if you want to eliminate the sound implementation system in the ceiling, then place a motion of the order paper. But we must have them under a standing order….

HON. MR. BARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see the House bogged down searching for the interpretation of rules that obviously don't apply at this point. The House has a problem, and only the House can offer its solution.

What I suggest is that the problem is partly created by the fact that it has been a practice in this House, myself included, to abuse the microphones to make a point during a particularly heated moment. Only on rare occasions have people promptly sat down when the Speaker gets to his feet — and I am naming myself as one of the worst offenders on occasion.

Now, having made that confession, how do we make the Speaker's job easier without the necessity of cutting off the microphone? I suggest it's a problem of the House and perhaps some….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think that's an answer: "Take the microphones away." It won't hurt you. It's taking the button away.

Mr. Speaker, I have no solution to the specific problem. What I have is a suggestion: can we agree to have a House committee come in with a recommendation of handling this particular problem? If that's at all possible, Mr. Speaker, I would so recommend that course of action. The House itself must govern itself.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, I think every Member of this House will agree that, through long precedence, the Speaker has the right to decide who will speak and when they'll speak. Only when an individual is recognized by the Speaker and allowed to speak, does he have the right to speak. I think we all agree on that.

The fact that some Member refuses to recognize the right of the Speaker on a given heated occasion, doesn't take away from the Speaker this right he has to determine who will speak when. And if some

[ Page 779 ]

Member ignores that right of the Speaker then, in my opinion, the fact that the Speaker pushes a button to enforce his right is not necessarily wrong.

I think we have to recognize the right of the Speaker to determine who will speak and when. If that's what you're arguing about, if you say that he hasn't got that right, then that's how close you're getting to it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, that is presenting arguments to the problem, and that is not solving the problem. It is an expression of opinion which I happen to agree with. But just because I happen to agree with that particular opinion does not solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the House must govern itself. If some Members cannot abide by the rules, that is a separate matter. But obviously the House has yet to define how to handle this particular problem.

I therefore suggest that we have a House committee composed of the most respected Members of this House with many years of experience in dealing with these problems, and ask them to advise the Speaker as to how the House wishes to handle this particular problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would be most happy to have your opinions and your advice by such a committee. I point out to you that this practice has been in vogue since 1956; one microphone goes off as one goes on. If it happens to be that the Speaker is involved in that contest with some Member, then one or the other microphone gives way. It's up to a committee perhaps to look into this. I'd ask that somebody put it on the order paper. I've only used this microphone switch myself twice since I've been here.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, on this same point of order: I don't want to belabour it, but I want to support what the Hon. Premier has said. The question is not one of microphones; the question is not one of switches. Because any one of the Members of this House can be heard without a microphone switched on or switched off. The question has finally come after all these years — and it started long before 1956 — and that is whether all of the Hon. Members in this House are prepared to abide by the rules.

The rule is an undeniable one, Mr. Speaker: when you stand in your place or when the Chairman stands in his, the Member who is on his feet ceases speaking and sits down. This is the practice in other parliaments; it is unquestionably adhered to in the House of Commons in Ottawa and in Britain, and it's time that we matured and adhered to the same rules here. If we are not adult enough for that, we don't deserve to be here.

I suggest — and I don't know how it could best be done and how it could be done most quickly — that there should be an all-party meeting and that all parties should agree to abide by that simple rule. Then, Sir, we won't have to worry about microphones and buttons, and the Speaker and the Chairman will never have to push the button again and they can be taken out of the chamber.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House could I ask that an informal committee be struck composed of the committee chairmen — the committee that meets to select the committees? Let that committee, which is most experienced already, handle this matter informally, meet with the Speaker and advise the Speaker on some form of agreement.

If that meets with the approval of the House I don't think we need a motion, just an agreement — with power on the committee's part as a committee to add if they wish to.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

[ Page 780 ]

APPENDIX

The following report was presented to the House on Wednesday, October 17, and should have been referred to on page 719.

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries begs leave to report as follows: In addition to hearings held in Victoria during the last Legislative Session, public meetings were held in Terrace and Prince George during the month of August for the purpose of hearing briefs. The Committee also visited forest operations on Vancouver Island and in the Prince Rupert and Prince George Forest Districts. The co-operation of forest companies, environmental groups, the British Columbia Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Department of Recreation and Conservation, and Federal Fisheries Service is gratefully acknowledged.

The Committee found that the question of stream bank-logging could not be separated from the whole question of integrated resource management because any disturbance in any part of a watershed can have a profound effect on other parts of the watershed.

1. INVENTORY

Your Committee found that, while there was adequate inventory information available for forest cover, inventories for other resources were inadequate, nonexistent, or not available in usable form.

The Committee therefore recommends:

(a) That programmes to compile inventory data on the following resources be accelerated and that the quality of inventory data for these resources be brought up as quickly as possible to the standard of forest cover inventory data:

(1) Fish and fish streams, including tributary streams, spawning and rearing areas:

(2) Wildlife species, including fur-bearing animals, predators, birds, and other species in addition to ungulates:

(3), Wildlife habitat, including winter and summer ranges, migration corridors, feeding, and watering areas:

(4) Soils and bedrock geology, including groundwater and surface water data:

(5) Recreation, including areas of potential value for recreation:

(6) Areas of special interest, including natural features of scenic beauty, cultural features such as historic and prehistoric sites, traplines, trails, and cabins.

The Committee does not wish to have priority attached to any of these resources when funds are allotted for inventory purposes. If priorities are given it should be to critical areas where resource values are presently in conflict or where conflicts are imminent. These areas should be inventoried immediately for all values.

(b) That inventory data be made available to resource managers in the form of overlay maps where feasible.

(c) Until more complete data for all resource values is available, local resource management personnel should submit to the Environmental Secretariat information on areas which should be excluded from resource development.

2. INTEGRATION OF MANAGEMENT

Your Committee found that there was a lack of communication between resource management agencies of the Provincial Government and between Provin-

[ Page 781 ]

APPENDIX

cial and Federal management agencies in some cases. In all of the areas we visited, these relationships were said to be improving in part due to the operation of regional district technical planning committees. However, the Committee feels that integrated management of resources requires further improvement of communication and that existing barriers to communication must be removed. The Committee, therefore, recommends as follows:

(a) That management districts for all resources be redefined so that district staff of the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Parks Branch, Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and Department of Agriculture (Soils), Lands Branch, and Water Resources Branch have management responsibility for the same geographic area.

(b) That a civil service position be created for each management district to co-ordinate activities of resource management agencies in the district. This position to be responsible to the Environment and Land Use Committee established under the Environment and Land Use Act.

(c) That district staffs for all management agencies be located in the same centre of a resource management district where practical.

3. PLANNING PROCESS

Your Committee found that resource conflicts occurred in many cases because all agencies were not informed at the outset or early enough in the planning stages of a resource development plan to have an effective voice in the plan and to ensure that all values were recognized. This was particularly true in the Vancouver Forest District where, because of the large areas under private tenures and the historical problems of logging development, planning initiatives usually arise in the private sector. The Committee therefore recommends:

(a) That any agency, corporation, or individual contemplating resource development be required to notify all other agencies of its intentions through the co-coordinator proposed in recommendation 2 (b) above, and that notification be required far enough in advance, preferably at the initial survey, exploration, or inventory stage (cruising), so that all resource values involved can be taken into consideration before development begins.

(b) That greater recognition must be given to the public's interest in private land because any resource development on private land affects the publicly owned resources such as fish, wildlife, and water, that use the land.

4. EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Your Committee found that fish and wildlife management and enforcement staffs were inadequate in numbers. The same is true of other management agencies, including Water Rights Branch Lands Branch, and Commercial Fisheries Branch. Certain professional and technical personnel are also desperately required, for example in the field of fish and wildlife biology, soils and bedrock geology, and watershed hydrology. As a result the Provincial Government is in the position of setting guidelines to minimize the deleterious effects of resource harvesting on the environment, without adequate knowledge of those effects. In addition, it is often humanly impossible for understaffed enforcement sections to perform their functions adequately. The Committee therefore recommends:

(a) That there be an immediate increase in the number of conservation officers so that adequate personnel are available for patrol in every area of the Province.

(b) That training courses for conservation officers be expanded to provide replacement conservation officers as required and to broaden the knowledge of Forest Ranger staff.

(c) That the technical and professional staffs of all other resource management branches be immediately assessed and additional Personnel be hired as necessary.

[ Page 782 ]

APPENDIX

(d) That budgets for district offices of the Fish and Wildlife Branch be increased immediately to provide for additional research, inventory, management, and enforcement requirements.

(e) That an education programme be established at the district level to inform all individuals involved in resource extraction of the need for concern for all resource values in the district.

(f) That district resource management staff should be required to prepare a manual similar to the Ontario Design Guidelines for Forest Management.

(g) That the terms and conditions for resource extraction should be clearly spelled out on each permit with severe penalties for violations. Resource users who repeat violations should lose their rights to Crown resources.

5. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Committee felt that because of the variability of conditions in each watershed it would be impossible to prescribe a green belt of specific width that would apply throughout the Province. However, because of their value for fish and wildlife, recreation, esthetics, and other uses, the banks of streams, including those of intermittent, tributary, and headwater streams, should be reserved from cutting until all resource management agencies have been consulted and an on-site assessment has been made to determine

(a) the importance of the stream and stream-bank area for all resources;

(b) the width and type of vegetation to be reserved from development.

2. Marsh areas and the shorelines of lakes, and the ocean should be similarly reserved.

3. Clearcut openings should be carefully laid out according to the contours of the land to protect game trails and wildlife populations, and in such a way that they do not create the impression of large areas of devastation in the minds of people using adjacent roadways, travelled waterways, communities, or recreation areas. A landscape architect should be hired on a consulting basis in each Forest District to advise on the location, shape, and alignment of logged openings.

4. As roads are the main cause of sedimentation in streams, detailed specifications should be formulated for the construction and maintenance of all roads, branch lines, landings, and skidder trails, based on a careful examination of slopes, soil types, drainage, and geology of the area to be developed. Roads should interfere as little as possible with the natural drainage of the area. Construction and maintenance of roads, ditches, and culverts should be policed regularly by the Forest Service. No cutting permits should be issued unless roads are constructed and maintained to specifications. Severe penalties should be levied for violations of prescribed road construction and maintenance specifications.

5. That strict guidelines should be imposed upon the storage and transport of logs in water. As soon as is feasible the Provincial Government should require that all log sorting take place on land and that logs be transported by barge or ship. Where a logging operation is only temporary or where economy demands, water transport should be permitted provided the logs are bundled, placed in the water, and removed in a careful manner. However, in any decision to allow transportation of logs in water, the needs of other water users, domestic supply, fisheries, etc., should be given full consideration.

ROBERT E. SKELLY, Chairman