[ Page 1059 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Abbotsford school district dispute. Mr. Schroeder — 1059

Crime wave in Mission, Mr. Wallace — 1059

Proposed regulations for B.C. pubs. Mr. McGeer — 1059

Increase in elderly citizen renters grant. Mrs. Jordan — 1060

Additional police for City of Kelowna. Mr. Bennett — 1060

Clarification on 10-acre freeze. Mr. Williams — 1060

A Brownie in every cockpit. Mr. Phillips — 1060

Public hearings on proposed 400-ft.-wide Island Hydro strip. Mr. McGeer — 1060

Government purchase of stocks. Mr. Morrison — 1061

Documents on ferry purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1061

Moratorium on riverbank logging. Mr. Wallace — 1061

Death-trap conditions in Vancouver east end hotels. Mr. Smith — 1061

Employment of women in B.C. liquor outlets, Mrs. Jordan — 1061

An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth 11 British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act (Bill 97). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1062

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill 69). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1062

Mr. Morrison — 1062

Mr. McGeer — 1062

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1062

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill 83).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1063

Mr. Curtis — 1063

Ms. Sanford — 1064

Mr. Williams — 1064

Mr. Lewis — 1064

Mrs. Jordan — 1064

Mr. McGeer — 1064

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1064

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1065

Mr. Morrison — 1066

Mr. McGeer — 1066

Mr. Wallace — 1066

Mrs. Jordan — 1067

Ms. Sanford — 1067

Mr. Williams — 1068

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1068

Mr. Richter — 1069

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1069

Pacific North Coast cooperative Native Loan Act (Bill 87). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1072

Mr. Morrison — 1072

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1072

Mr. Wallace — 1074

Mr. McGeer — 1074

Introduction Presentation of Dr. Linus Pauling to the House. Hon. Mr. Barrett . — 1074

Mr. Richter — 1075

Mr. McGeer — 1075

Mr. Wallace — 1075

Mrs. Jordan — 1075

Routine proceedings

Pacific North Coast cooperative Native Loan Act (Bill 87). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 1075

Mr. Gardom — 1076

Mr. Phillips — 1077

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1078

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1078

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1079

Department of Transportation and Communications Act (Bill 64).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1081

Mr. Fraser — 1083

Mr. Williams — 1084

Mr. Wallace — 1085

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1088

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed this afternoon I'd like to advise the Hon. Members that a very famous Nobel Peace Prize winner will be here — who's also the only one to have won two Nobel prizes, one for chemistry and the other for peace — Dr. Linus Pauling. He will be arriving here at approximately 3:15 or 3:30. I would consider it an honour if we could introduce him in the House. He will be available to Members in the Members' lounge — the DeBeck Lounge — between 3:30 and 4:30 if you care to meet him. There will be refreshments served there for Members who are taking a break from the session. I hope that some people remain in the chamber — we need a quorum of 10. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There may be megavitamins as well.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker we have a visiting class of students with us today from the Burnsville Junior Secondary School in Delta. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. MacMillan, Mr. Godwin and Mr. Wenman who is a former Member of this Legislature.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House a former Member of this assembly, Mr. Ernie LeCours, a well-known critic of the last two Attorneys General, and a man who gave very good service in this House over quite a few terms of office.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver South here with us today. They are accompanied by four of their teachers, and I would again ask the House to welcome them here today.

Oral questions.

ABBOTSFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT DISPUTE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The question is for the Minister of Education. I'd like to ask what steps she has taken to help settle the dispute that exists between the administration and the maintenance people in the school district of Abbotsford.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I have not taken any steps to date. I have planned a meeting to discuss this with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). This does not mean that we're going to take any immediate action, but the two of us like to be kept aware of just how serious a situation is.

MR. SCHROEDER: Is the Minister aware that the dispute is ageing — it started off May of last year and the mediation officer's report was filed a week ago Monday? In spite of his report which offers a substantial pay increase, the strike is continuing. This morning the teamsters did not cross the picket line and the buses did not run. Is she aware?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, Mr. Member. I appreciate the information you have given me and I will discuss it with the Minister of Labour.

CRIME WAVE IN MISSION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney General: in view of the 12.5 per cent increase in crime per year, and in view of a telegram I have received from Mission, is he aware of the serious wave of breaking and enterings in Mission? And has he been asked to take any measure to bring this under control?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that particular situation in that particular municipality. But I'm glad that the Hon. Member has drawn it to my attention and I will have it looked at.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS
FOR B.C. PUBS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General: in view of the inordinate delays of the Liquor Control Board in issuing regulations regarding pubs in British Columbia, has the Attorney General any announcement to make as to when these regulations will be available?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, regulations are being worked upon at the present time. But they will have to be carefully considered by the three Liquor Control Board members, and their view upon those new regulations will be sought, so I can't give a time limit. I don't want to say when they're in draft form that a certain number of months will pass before they're promulgated — or it may be a shorter time. But the important thing is that the drafting process is now well under way.

INCREASE IN ELDERLY
CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT

[ Page 1060 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier: I'd like to ask, in view of the rising inflationary costs, the growing shortage of apartments and the increase in rent, has he put into effect yet any efforts to increase the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act to $100 per year, effective for 1973?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It's not an item in this year's budget, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the gravity of the situation is the Premier prepared to introduce a special bill at this session to meet this emergency need for the elderly renters of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, I think that would be out of order under the rules.

MRS. JORDAN: Why, why?

ADDITIONAL POLICE
FOR CITY OF KELOWNA

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Attorney General. Earlier this year the City of Kelowna was enlarged arbitrarily, and at that time the government promised to cover the policing costs for the next three years. Although the provisional council asked for 24 additional policemen for the new area, the government promised 10 in this calendar year. Can the Attorney General tell me how many of these peace officers have been supplied as of this date?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that question is really being looked at in terms of the new budget for the forthcoming year, and in terms of the total availability of RCMP officers throughout the whole province. I can't say that it will receive any more immediate attention than that.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, but on the same question: I'm talking about the promise that was made for this particular year, not next year. They promised 10 peace officers. It is my understanding that there are only two RCMP officers for a 20-mile radius and 15,000 people per shift at this particular time. People are concerned that this government's commitment to the area wasn't met.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Member has drawn it to my attention. I will see whether or not the budgetary question I referred to can be expedited and consideration given to the immediate situation if there is a real need there — even prior to the next budget — for additional policing. It will receive consideration.

CLARIFICATION ON 10-ACRE FREEZE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Since the filing of the report of the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and, indeed, misapprehension about the continuation of what we know as the 10-acre freeze in our island communities. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to make a statement in that respect now.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think it is fair to say that the so-called 10-acre freeze will remain on the islands that are presently involved with it until such action as may be deemed necessary is taken on the report of the municipal matters committee. The islands will be protected until the other action is taken in order that there can be normality brought back to the islands again.

A BROWNIE IN EVERY COCKPIT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister in charge of the new jet air fleet. I would like to know, since these planes are predominantly purchased for photography, whether the Minister is going to leave cameras on the planes so that Ministers, when travelling, can take pictures. Or is the Minister going to supply each cabinet Minister with his own Brownie so that when they are travelling they can take these pictures?

AN HON. MEMBER: A Brownie in every cockpit.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Well, I think that once the present Ministers get the long experience in flying that the previous cabinet had, which will take us 10 years to accumulate, then we will consider whether or not we should buy Instamatics in gross lots.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED
400-FT.-WIDE ISLAND HYDRO STRIP

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams). With the proposed B.C. Hydro line and the 400-ft. wide strip that will be taken for that power line, will the Environment and Land Use Committee schedule public hearings regarding the location of that line that is to run up to Campbell River?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources). The environment and land use secretariat is carrying on discussions with the B.C.

[ Page 1061 ]

Hydro regarding various environmental matters.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary here. Will there be public hearings on this question?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will take this question under advisement.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF STOCKS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as Minister of Finance. Has the government, under the Revenue Act, purchased any shares on the open stock market during the last month; and, if so, what stocks are being traded or were purchased?

HON. MR. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MORRISON: Could I then add an additional question as a supplemental? Does the government have any buy orders placed now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as additional notice.

DOCUMENTS ON FERRY PURCHASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Some time ago I asked him whether he would table documents concerning the ferry purchase contracts. May I ask him whether he's had any opportunity to consider this matter so that we can determine from the documents whether or not the same specifications were given to Canadian as well as American firms.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I tabled all the documents that that resolution referred to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, the question I asked you, Mr. Minister, was approximately a week ago in the House. You at that time said that you would consider it and examine the documents and let us know in due course.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I would take it under consideration, and I'm still considering it.

MORATORIUM ON
RIVERBANK LOGGING

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon., Mr. Williams) if he is giving any consideration to imposing a moratorium on the logging practices on river banks as a result of the recommendations of the forestry committee;

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not a moratorium per se, no.

DEATH-TRAP CONDITIONS IN
VANCOUVER EAST END HOTELS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and if he would reflect back a few days to a disastrous hotel fire in the City of Vancouver: in view of the fact that under the liquor Act hotels can be denied licences for cause, has the fire marshal's office taken a hand in looking into the death-trap situations that seem to exist in some of the Vancouver east end hotels?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, of course the fire marshal has the authority to take action if it is a fire hazard; and that would be the primary source of any action. But I haven't received a report on that particular fire from the fire marshal personally. Perhaps my department has, so I'll have to take it as notice.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental. I presume that that report is forthcoming from the fire marshal. Perhaps in view of his report, the fire marshal, in his capacity, could use the powers of his office to alleviate the situation that exists apparently in other hotels besides the one where they had that fire a few weeks ago — or a few days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is somewhat inferential and really is not appropriate.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
IN B.C. LIQUOR OUTLETS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is almost a supplemental question to yesterday's question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) regarding discrimination against women in the civil service. I would ask if he has got together with the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to do away with the discrimination that exists today in the hiring of women for liquor stores.

The problem appeared to be in the area of the lifting of weights as it related to workmen's compensation. I would ask if the Provincial Secretary has done something, because my understanding from discussing this with many vendors is that very few of them actually do any lifting. There are many women that would like to work in the liquor stores in British Columbia.

[ Page 1062 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this question, as you know, has been addressed to various Ministers over the last little while. I understand, from conversations with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who has also been in touch with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), that such discussions are going on. I understand that the Liquor Control Board personnel are looking into the question of facilities for women who are going to be working in the various vending places — such as the provisions of toilets and things like that. So it is under active consideration.

As far as an amendment to the Factories Act, we are puzzled at the moment as to how best to amend that without really starting something we can't, in effect, finish because of some of the federal restrictions.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's reply. I would also just suggest that — and I do appreciate the problem — but I hope the facilities will not be pink.

MR. SPEAKER: No speeches please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE QUEEN ELIZABETH II BRITISH
COLUMBIA CENTENNIAL SCHOLARSHIP ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act.

Bill 97 introduced, 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.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Succession Duty Act allows a credit of taxes paid in other Canadian provinces by British Columbia residents whose inheritance is also taxed by that other province. It is now proposed through this bill to extend this credit by allowing it to taxes paid to foreign jurisdictions. Most of the other Canadian provinces levying a succession duty now provide a foreign tax credit. Its purpose is to avoid double taxation of the same bequest.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On this Act it would appear that on a number of occasions during this session we have made various excursions into the field of diplomacy. It's one thing to give a tax credit to another province, but it appears to be quite another thing to give a tax credit to a foreign jurisdiction. We are wondering if this is whittling away our legislative power and just exactly what the most favoured nation status on this particular bill means.

We would like the Premier, in closing this debate, to tell us a little more specifically what nations he has in mind and what the jurisdictions are and exactly what the reasons are. Having it in Canada is one thing, but favoured nation status is quite another thing. In principle we are not opposed to it; we would just like to know why.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this is correcting a fault in the Act that we drew to the attention of the former government at the time this particular Act was introduced.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who spoke about how we were giving tax jurisdiction away to some other nation ignores the fact that these other nations, particularly the United States, grant exemptions on taxes they normally levy to Canadians — to Canadian corporations and to Canadian individuals. While every individual should pay a fair share of taxes to every government and every jurisdiction from which he gains benefit, it is most unfair to have people — not matter where they live — paying the same tax two and three times.

It isn't a question of British Columbia giving away tax concessions to a foreign nation, it is merely British Columbia as a taxing jurisdiction behaving in a civilized accepted manner as all nations and all jurisdictions do.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has seen fit to permit this change in legislation to come forward because it is civilized and fair; it's mature, I frankly could not understand how the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) could have permitted for so many years such a bald parochialism to continue.

We are not doing anything great or anything striking by this; all we are doing is showing, as a jurisdiction, we're not in short pants any longer. We support this particular amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a few comments in closing the debate. It is not a tax credit to a foreign

[ Page 1063 ]

jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. That is incorrect and I know that the Member will not carry that message abroad. It is a credit to a B.C. resident based on tax paid in a foreign jurisdiction. As the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) points out, it's unfair to tax an estate twice on that basis.

I'm interested in the official opposition's spokesman on the question of this whole matter since we find in this amendment discussion around a bill that was first brought in by the Social Credit government and then, in the last election campaign, opposed by that government. I'm not clear after the Member's statement whether or not…. I find myself confused — after this party having brought the bill in and then opposing it in an election campaign and then somehow trying to leave the impression that we were giving something out of this bill that they are opposed to, although they brought it in themselves.

Now, I am very confused, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that that Member won't have the opportunity to explain it. Perhaps in committee he can give us a fourth position by that party and then we can have it split two-to-two — two for and two against.

The Member of Vancouver–Point Grey, whose party is against succession duty, is quite correct in his analysis of this particular section. I recall, if I am quoting him correctly, through you, Mr. Speaker, he was suggesting that all we gathered out of this bill was peanuts. Well, the last lump of peanuts we got amounted to $300 million worth of peanuts. That's an awful lot of peanuts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Those peanuts flew over the mountains.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, my friend says "flew over the mountains" and I say that if any British Columbian left the Province of British Columbia to avoid taxes — good riddance. Those people who have made their fortunes in this province have an obligation to see that their estates pay a fair share. We're being mature, as the Member said, by recognizing other jurisdictions, but I will tell you this: regardless of the schizophrenic position of the Social Credit Party, regardless of the position of the Liberals and Conservatives, as long as we are in power there will be a succession duty tax in the Province of British Columbia.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, a person must rent in the province for a two-year period before applying for a grant or second mortgage on the purchase of an older home, It has been brought to our attention that this works a hardship on returned servicemen who are unable to qualify under the two-year rental provision due to absence from the province on service duties. This bill, therefore, alters the qualifications required by servicemen in order to apply for grants or mortgages on the purchase of older homes. He or she will now be required to have lived in the province for a five-year period immediately prior to being sent out of the province by the armed services, and the two-year rental requirement is eliminated. The Provincial Home Acquisition Act will apply to servicemen now in the same manner on the purchase of a new or older home.

The other two amendments on the bill are designed to protect the Crown's interest when a second mortgage loan is secured against real property or granted against a mobile home.

Might I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has enjoyed a role of being chosen by the United Nations, on occasion, to be peace keepers. There have been citizens of this province who have been called to that duty by the federal government and as a result have not been able to take advantage of the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. By passing this amendment today, we are giving recognition, in a small way, to those citizens who have been called for such duty by our federal government.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Premier and his colleagues for moving to introduce this amendment which should have been looked after quite some time ago.

There was one particular case, which I drew to the Premier's attention and also to the attention of the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), of a gentleman who was posted out of the province in the service of the armed forces and had a fantastic run-around when he returned. Hopefully, after the amendment becomes law, some of this confusion — I hesitate to use the word bureaucratic confusion, but I think that is most appropriate — hopefully some of it can be cleared away. This individual went from office to office to office trying to find out precisely what was going on and what were his rights and what was he not able to do.

Passage of the amendment, while commendable

[ Page 1064 ]

and timely, is one thing, but making it easier for the individuals who have been hung up in this way, I think, is also most important.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome this amendment, too. I know I have had constituents with the same complaint. I know that at least one case from Comox riding was brought to the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Barrett's) attention.

In Comox riding where we have one of the largest air bases in Canada, this is a common problem. People are coming back because they like to settle again in Comox Valley once they are out of the air force, then find that they have not been able to get this grant through the provincial government. I know they welcome the change.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I do congratulate the Minister of Finance for this move, but I wonder if in closing the debate he would indicate why he limits the right to those people who are absent from the province by reason of service in the armed forces. There are other citizens of this province who serve in equally distinguished ways: with the United Nations, with the federal government through their services and through universities which oblige them to absent themselves from this province for periods of time.

Because there is such a vast number of circumstances for which citizens of this province may be obliged to absent themselves, I would hope that the government might feel it appropriate to bring forward an amendment which would give some discretion for applications to be made and, in a proper case, for exemptions to the rather stringent requirements for qualification to be allowed.

I certainly do agree with the armed forces situation, but there should be some method of reviewing the case of individual residents in the province who may not fall within that strict classification.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I too welcome this bill, but I'd like to ask the Premier, through you, if there is any possibility that the RCMP could be included in this type of legislation. I've had several officers come to me and say that they have been sent out of the province for a period of time, and return to the province to find that they can no longer be eligible for the benefits. I also feel that the RCMP is a form of public service, the same as the armed forces, and consideration should be given to this. Thank you.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We certainly support this amendment. The Hon. Member for Shuswap stole the force from my words; I was going to speak on behalf of the RCMP.

I would also like to ask the Minister to take under advisement — recognizing you don't want to open this too wide — the concern of students who have grown up in British Columbia, who may have gone to university here, who left for post-graduate studies and who returned to B.C. to work.

Most students graduating find themselves in a very difficult financial situation. They come back to British Columbia, want to start in employment, often have families and want to purchase a home. Up to now they have been excluded. I could cite a case of a minister who took his PhD and came back. Ministers are notoriously underpaid; he had a family and yet he couldn't qualify. I hope the Premier would consider this in reviewing further amendments to this Act.

MR. McGEER: I merely wish to echo the remarks of several speakers here. I think it is quite evident from the debate so far that the problem with respect to the armed forces, while no less important than the other problems that have been raised with regard to residency, in terms of numbers is perhaps one of the smaller exceptional groups. I would hope, perhaps even at this session, that the Minister might consider either introducing amendments or accepting amendments that surely will be put on the order paper by opposition Members to permit some of the quite severe injustices to be corrected.

Of course, I think particularly of students because they're the ones who are leaving British Columbia to improve their training and will be able to make a better contribution as British Columbians at some future time. We certainly don't offer the full range of educational opportunities here in British Columbia, making it necessary for people who want to acquire all sorts of advanced skills to leave the province in order to do so.

I don't think anybody is broker than a student the day he graduates. Here they are, usually at the stage of starting their families and beginning the building up of an equity in life at a later age than most people. They have double jeopardy because, in finishing their training and extending the time until they can start on this process, they've disqualified themselves from the very thing that the government really intended in establishing this legislation.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Premier in closing the debate if he would give us a little explanation on section 3? There are parts of that, particularly (8), that we're a little….

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: In the committee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I now have some idea why the former Minister of Finance (Hon.

[ Page 1065 ]

Mr. Bennett) refused to amend anything, because once…. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, opening the can of worms. But we're willing to risk that. As a matter of fact, this kind of amendment brings forth excellent suggestions and I will certainly review some of them.

I would like to state a note of appreciation to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) who wrote to my office outlining specific cases rather than discussing the problem in the abstract. They gave specific cases with reasons surrounding it which brought forward this amendment.

MR. GARDOM: I did it three years in a row.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I wasn't around then; it was different administration. I'm far more receptive, Mr. Speaker, and if the Member continues to write me about his cases, I'll consider responding…. not always.

The suggestions about the RCMP and the students are most attractive and I will say that this will be reviewed by the Finance department.

In terms of any civilian who has been called from British Columbia by the United Nations on any service to the United Nations, I will say right now that the regulations will include that person.

I speak from personal experience about post-graduate students. Both of our two oldest children were born between universities.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope there were hospitals there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …in hospitals between universities — we lost our medical coverage of both deliveries and pregnancy periods, and we were faced with fantastic hospital bills.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I know, but at that time we didn't have the B.C. Government Medical Plan; we had the voluntary plan and we lost it on a residence basis. That was one of the motivations, Mr. Speaker, for me to fight for socialized medicine. Although it was late in my case, it was helpful in others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh well, you made money, we lost it.

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is absolutely correct. There is added weight to the argument about students because many of them have gone from the province to acquire skills that we were not able to provide here in our universities and coming back with those skills to serve the people of British Columbia. That has a great deal of merit to it. I don't see an amendment immediately but I will discuss it with the Finance department. If it's feasible, we'll certainly amend it next spring.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate that they lose that too, Mr. Member, but that's a separate matter that….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll talk to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly). The question outlined is a can of worms. In this particular instance, I'd like to check. I don't think there are that many people involved; I just don't believe that. If the case is such that these people can be umbrella-ed, then certainly the amendments will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 83 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TAXATION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Taxation Act is to encourage persons who now wish to donate their property to the province by allowing them to live on the property tax free during their lifetime. This exemption would extend to the lifetime of the owner or any other person he designates, if approved by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This Act is made retroactive to include donations of property made during the year 1973.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a whole new phenomenon developed in this province since the advent of Bill 42 and the debate around that land bill. There is a growing consciousness, Mr. Speaker, about the ownership of land and the fact that ownership of land in itself may be, as a philosophical question, a questionable practice.

Many people have written this government since

[ Page 1066 ]

the debate on the land bill offering land free to the Crown for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Some of the more notable gifts to the people of British Columbia were noted in the throne speech. I have asked the Provincial Secretary to consider some special award or some special token of recognition to those people in this province who do, out of generosity, give their land to the people of this province.

Another attempt to meet this growing spontaneous development, Mr. Speaker, is this amendment. For those people who do donate their land to the province, then this amendment will say that no longer must they pay taxes during their lifetime for that land. A notable case, Mr. Speaker, is the Ruckles family in the Gulf Islands.

There have been other notable examples: the name of the family escapes me at this moment, but the donation at Revelstoke of that large block of land.

This is a strange bringing-together of the ideas of young people and of the elderly. Those of us in the middle group are not as spontaneously generous as the very young and the very old; but for those who are so generous I say that this is a small recognition of their generosity. We hope that we're able to recognize them in a far more tangible way in terms of some award or plaque or some system of merit.

It is a wonderful development to witness that people are actually giving land back to the Crown for other citizens to enjoy. It's one of the most pleasant experiences I've had since being in office. I hope it continues to grow, Mr. Speaker, and I hope this amendment encourages that growth.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we think that this is a wonderful suggestion that people are giving land, but I would like to draw to the attention of the Premier that it is not something that is new. There has been a number of cases on record in the past.

There are some other questions that another of our Members would like to bring up concerning it, but in principle we certainly heartily concur with those people who wish to share their land with the people of this province.

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

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, did I say…? (Laughter.) Order! I want to assure you all I was not at any party last night. (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You had me worried there for a moment. There's one less seat in this little group than there was yesterday. We were wondering if another would be gone by tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, naturally we support this piece of legislation and welcome it. One of the attractive aspects, apart from the fact that the public will benefit as a whole from these acts of generosity, is to look at the other side of it and consider what a welcome relief it is for people who are beyond their earning years and who need the income they have to sustain themselves, in their homes and on their land, not to be faced with the oppressive burden of property taxes.

The government naturally will welcome property on the Gulf Islands that will be turned into a beautiful park for the people. But if you have a 33-foot lot in Vancouver East and the choice is between paying exorbitant rent or perhaps trying to find a spot in a nursing home or otherwise be dispossessed if you cannot find exorbitant property tax funds, then the choice isn't as happy for them as it is for the person who may be relatively land-wealthy and who has a piece of property that the Crown would consider valuable as parkland. For the individuals concerned it may be just as difficult or even more difficult to raise the property taxes, and that 33-foot lot in Vancouver East may be more precious to them, more important to their happiness than this wonderfully attractive plot that was brought out as an example by the Minister.

I think we should be broadening this concept, looking at the burden of property taxes on those who are beyond their earning years, and exempting them from their property taxes, even if they aren't returning the land to the Crown. They can't take that land with them, and for many years Members of the Liberal Party have suggested that back taxes could be paid whenever that property was disposed of, whether the Crown disposes of it or whether it is disposed of by beneficiaries of the estate.

The important side of this that I would like the government to consider is the relief it will bring to elderly people in British Columbia to know that they can live out their lives in their homes and on their property without facing that darkening sword each year of increasing property taxes being loaded on a rising cost of living when their income remains relatively constant. We'd be doing a far better act for the people of British Columbia if we were to broaden the whole concept of this piece of legislation to remove all property taxes from all people over the age of 65 — back taxes, if you like, to be collected at some future time by the government from the beneficiaries of their estate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We certainly stand here to support the principle of this bill. There are one or two questions which will arise in committee, I'm sure, but the examples that the Premier quoted I think will serve as a stimulus to

[ Page 1067 ]

others.

The CBC television news, as a matter of fact, ran a film on the property of Revelstoke — and I also forget the name of the property owners; it's a brother and sister as I recall — and gave some real impression of the sweep of land and the tremendous value that this land would have as parkland.

The former speaker has widened the scope of the debate somewhat by suggesting that all property tax be taken off land for all people over the age of 65. I think that is something worthy of consideration, but within the confines of this bill I think the Premier is setting a very good example to the people of the province to take up the idea of donating their land, if this is their wish, to the Crown.

While this is recognition by freeing them of taxes, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, I would suggest that perhaps we should also set up some other formal measure of recognition which does something more than just give them freedom from taxation while they live on the land. I think there should be some kind of role or record or some kind of publicity given to the continuing donation of the land, perhaps in this building or somewhere in an appropriate form, which would not only give publicity but hopefully encourage others to follow suit. But we strongly support the principle of this bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't wish to repeat the majority of statements made by the other Members in support of this bill, but in speaking to the principle one or two questions come to mind which I would hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) would elaborate upon when he's moving second reading. The first is whether or not this bill will relate directly or indirectly to grants of land to municipalities and regional districts.

While I accept the Premier's statements on the generosity and the deep motivation of people who do donate lands to the people of British Columbia, I would suggest that this is not a new phenomenon. There are many communities and there are many areas of the province where land has been donated. Certainly in the Okanagan Valley there are areas where there have been lands donated for park purposes, for school board purposes, to municipalities for similar purposes. If it is not equated in this bill, I wonder if the Premier would consider an amendment to the Municipal Act which would allow for the same opportunity to exist if land is given to a regional district or if land is given to a municipality. I think this is important in view of the fact that we now have Crown lands which, for example, might be under the jurisdiction of the Parks Branch but are in fact being turned over to regional districts for management and operation. And this could happen even more frequently in the future.

The next question that comes to mind in speaking to the principle of this Act is whether or not the donor is free to designate the use to which the land may be put, not only immediately, but in the future. I'm not suggesting that the donor should have complete right, but I am suggesting that when this happens generally, with the exception of the odd weird plot that appears in various parts of British Columbia, there is discussion with the parks branch or public works or any number of branches as to the use to which this land might be best put.

If this is to be the case, will there be some sort of assurance that this commitment of use will be honoured, not only by this administration but by future administrations? I would think that to honour this commitment, it would probably have to be done by an Act of the Legislature — or it would require an Act of the Legislature to remove the use of the land from its designation.

I know it doesn't happen often, but I was involved in a specific case where a gentleman was making up his will leaving a considerable sum of money and some property to a municipality but it really didn't come into effect until after the end of the 19th century. He had a very definite purpose in mind, but at the time I advised him that I felt there could be no guarantee for what he was proposing. I think when it comes to the point of donating land, within reason, there should be some assurance that it will be used in perpetuity for the purpose for which the donor gave it and designated it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak in support of this bill and agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that we should continue to give some sort of recognition to the people who do donate land to the province.

I had two of my constituents down here on opening day of the House because they were being recognized that day for the donation which they had made in Comox riding. You know, it meant a lot of them to be here in the House that day and to receive that kind of recognition.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was making some comments concerning the difficulty people have paying their taxes on 33-ft. lots in places like Vancouver. The same applies in areas that are more rural in the province. Very often people have bought two or three or four acres and have found that the whole community has grown up around them. Now, they do not want to subdivide that two or three or four acres, but they find they just cannot keep up with the taxes they are facing because of the increase in the value of their property as a result of the growth around them.

These people don't want to subdivide; they don't want to leave their home; they don't want to move into an apartment; they don't want to move into a home of any kind. They just want to stay where they

[ Page 1068 ]

are. I think this is an excellent opportunity for them to live out their lives in that place free from taxation. I support the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly and in line with the suggestions made by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that municipalities should be given this right. May I assure the Member that this right already exists under very properly drawn agreements between the donors of land to municipalities.

The late, highly-respected Dr. Ethlyn Trapp, a decade or more ago, gave a significant parcel of land to the municipality of West Vancouver for park purposes. It was so conveyed that the use of the land for park purposes was assured in perpetuity. It was also provided at that particular time that Dr. Trapp could continue to occupy the property for the balance of her life, which regretfully ended not many months ago.

I, too, support this principle. I believe that donors of land should be encouraged to come forward at times when they can see the wisdom of making these donations, but they should not be subject to the imposition, and sometimes the hardship, of tax once having taken that generous attitude.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions which come to mind. This Act, an amendment to the Taxation Act, as I see it, will apply basically outside of municipalities; in other words, in the area where perhaps 20 per cent of the population lives.

Within a municipality if a person donates his property to the Crown, as I understand it, this Act would not apply because municipal taxation would still be there and the Crown has no intention, as I understand the Minister of Finance, of picking up the municipal taxation if someone was generous enough to donate their property within the municipality to the Crown. Perhaps if my understanding on this is incorrect, the Minister of Finance will comment on it when he closes the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily approve of the bill and the concept of it. The concept, I might add, is not new at all. In Britain we have the provisions which have made the National Trust possible, and that dates back to before the turn of the century. Ironically, back in the 1890s it was started up with an American who donated money for the purchase of land for their National Trust.

More recently, there's the Mayne Island Trust, which I know something about and have visited, where again land is put aside with provisions such as this. But I think the real vehicle that we need at this stage to make such donations more numerous and to make them more attractive is some sort of vehicle such as the Mayne trust or, of course, the British National Trust.

It's fine to donate land to the Crown — a nice gesture to donate it all to the people — however, people generally like, and it's been found to be far more effective, to donate land to a trust of some sort run by a board of governors which is independent of the government and which could then take over more land and also acquire easement.

A very important factor, which I think has yet to be discussed fully by us in this Legislature, is the Crown's need to purchase easements in areas — for example the Gulf Islands. If there is an area which is covered in arbutus and is attractive from the water, and for aesthetic purposes it should not be cut, there is no need to own the land. You can, however, acquire the easement either by gift or by purchase. A great number of our problems with land use in B.C. would, I think, be overcome with a greater use of easements.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other point I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. During the last session we amended the Municipal Act dealing with heritage buildings, either historic or heritage buildings — buildings of architectural value, historic value, buildings that represent a period, a time in our history, and, of course, Victoria has many of these. The Emily Carr House is perhaps one very close to us and well known.

The problem that arises, however, is that there's absolutely no financial provision in any legislation I know of, municipal or provincial, to protect such heritage houses by way of, for example, tax credits or easements on taxation, by way of granting assistance to preserve these generally large pieces of property which are very attractive for development purposes, but on which you have only one house which is probably an inefficient house in terms of heating, in terms of housing people because of its age. We have lost many houses. The Parrot House in Victoria was one which was lost not too long ago, and they're now building on the very site. We are losing our heritage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Historical sites.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance rightly mentions historic sites, but some of these buildings are not historic so much as of heritage value; they represent a certain period. There's a legal distinction here which unfortunately had not been covered when we amended the Municipal Act and nothing within this Act would seem to assist either.

Certainly we want to preserve properties outside of municipalities, no question about that. We accept and applaud the intent of this particular amendment, but we do feel it should go a great deal further. There is no provision now for assistance in either heritage or historic buildings. There is no provision for assistance within municipalities, and yet that is where the bulk of the population live — 75 to 80 per cent of it.

[ Page 1069 ]

We feel that if we are getting into this question of assisting by way of relief from taxes, we should also be willing to do the corollary which is assistance by way of grants in lieu of a taxation relief, for example, within a municipality itself. This type of assistance is not now provided, and we would strongly urge that it be done.

In addition, I would just like to agree with my colleague from Point Grey that it is perfectly feasible to set up a system whereby senior citizens can have their property turned over to the Crown in return for having their taxes relieved for their lifetime. The actuarial tables are established; it's perfectly simple to set up a system whereby they can be relieved of all future municipal taxation for the rest of their lives, for the rest of the period they intend to live in their homes. Indeed, it may well be possible to pay them in addition a certain amount of money if the value of the property is extensive.

We in this party, and I in particular, most strongly endorse the concept of allowing senior citizens to take advantage of the same type of legislation, legislation with the same principle as this, which would allow them to be relieved of municipal taxation and in the future have that property turned over to the Crown after the death of the surviving spouse.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this bill has much greater impact than what may appear on the surface. While it covers Crown land or land that is Crown granted and would be donated to the government or sold to the government with the proviso the party would be able to live on the land, there is nothing in this Act which says that portions of that land may be resold by the government as they see fit. So you could have a substantial acreage — let us use a hypothetical figure of 20 acres — have a home on an acre or two of it and the balance, after you had donated it to the government, there's no provision here saying that the government is going to allow it to remain in that particular status or classification, and naturally they could sell it.

Under the existing legislation, much of the land today under the Land Commission Act has become a liability to many of the people and they would naturally be quite happy to get out of that liability and turn it over to the government. However, it doesn't have to remain in the classification set down under Bill 42; there is nothing to preclude the government removing it from that classification once they become the owners of it.

I want to commend people who are prepared to donate land to the Crown for recreation and other purposes of that nature that benefit the community and the citizens. But when it comes to being forced off your land and taking this as second best, well then, of course, I have some reservations in my mind in this relationship. Certainly there is nothing in this Act to preclude the government changing the status of that land in order to do with it as they see fit.

While I am quite prepared to support legislation that permits the donation of land to the Crown, I have definite reservations in my mind as to its future use.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sinister about the bill. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it really interesting how a little bit paranoiac some Members get after they've been in this House under repression for 20 years. They get a little bit of light in their life and immediately they are suspicious that something can't possibly be good because they never got anything good when they were in power.

Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned in British Columbia and people don't feel frustrated about their government in the way they did before. And I understand, Mr. Speaker, why the former Minister is suspicious; he was never even allowed to discuss this kind of thing in the previous cabinet. When a little bit of enlightenment hits him, he gets nervous and worried.

MR. RICHTER: Don't fool yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't kid myself?

MR. RICHTER: Don't fool yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't fool myself. You are a prisoner of the past.

I can remember how they used to brag when they had a caucus meeting, a two-day caucus meeting, and the highlight was that the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) even came for an hour. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what Dr. McDiarmid said.

MR. GARDOM: That was leap year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the highlight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. former Minister (Mr. Richter), let me assure you and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), when people donate their land, their request as to how they want the land

[ Page 1070 ]

used will be a major factor in deciding how the land should be used. If they say it should be used as a parking lot, obviously, you know….

The people who have the motivation, the people who have arrived at a philosophical decision and thus have a motivation to donate land to the province are obviously people who have a great love for British Columbia and a concern about park area, are concerned about open space, and their wishes would be respected by this government.

Now, what are the checks on this? Can you imagine a better issue if you were a Member of the opposition and somebody donated 50 acres for a park and the government carved it up and put a parking lot on it?

MRS. JORDAN: How about the University Endowment Lands?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has it happened yet?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, good. Have a good go. All I'm suggesting is that the role of the opposition is to criticize. I know you are having difficulty finding anything to criticize, but if we do on occasion make a mistake, let me be the first to point it out to you so that you can have a good go at us.

Mr. Speaker, when somebody donates land for a park, obviously it will stay as a park, if that is the most practical use for the land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aha!

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, then. Okay. Vote against the amendment and then I'll have to go and tell everybody you're against donating land to the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just have to simplify this thing that way, Mr. Speaker. I'm always forced to simplify. I don't like to do it; it doesn't come easy to me. But when I'm forced this way, I'll have to tell the people that you were opposed to this concept.

MR. McGEER: Do you promise to do it on your weekly press releases?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In my weekly press releases, on my trips to the hustings, on radio talk shows, television appearances, I'll try to be fair to the opposition on occasion. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention and the House's attention to the throne speech of this session where we did list the names of John and Caroline Bergenham, Mrs. R.W. Starratt, Truman Dagnus Locheed, Clifford A. and Dorothy A. Gorby, Henry Gordon Ruckle, Mrs. Margaret Jane Pearse, and an anonymous donor in Hope who has given us land. It is a phenomenon that is not brand new.

MRS. JORDAN: All those were negotiated before you took office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I care to respond to that, Madam Member, I don't want to involve these people in a debate between government and the Social Credit opposition. But that statement is incorrect. I would not like to put these people's names into a political debate with you, but the reaction of one of these donors was, in the letter, "Thank God another government was elected before we donated our land." I don't want to go into names or anything, but I am responding to a political statement thrown out by the Member and I thought the facts should be made straight.

It is a new phenomenon that is accelerating. I am pleased that everybody in this House welcomes this. It is an idealized goal when people donate land back for other people to use.

The question raised by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is valid. I'm sorry he left before I gave the answers; I am hopeful that you will convey the answers to him. It is true that this amendment relates to land in unorganized areas. There is no reason, in the instance outlined by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), why that can't be duplicated in other municipal jurisdictions.

I would advise the Second Member for Victoria that if there is a particular donation that the municipality or the town or the village would have to refuse because they couldn't accommodate it financially, in those instances an appeal to the senior government would be heard. If the situation develops where they would have to pass up a gift because they couldn't afford the loss of the tax revenue, I would expect an appeal to the senior government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the municipality? Well, I would hope we would negotiate with the municipality. Sure, I would be very flexible about it. We wouldn't get caught up in a fight with the municipality about the taxes and destroy the kind of goodwill and good feeling that obviously takes place. I can imagine somebody donating land and the last thing they would want would be to establish a squabble between the government and the municipality. We would avoid that.

I would also like to hear from the UBCM (Union

[ Page 1071 ]

of British Columbia Municipalities), and certainly they would have to be consulted on that kind of problem. Perhaps the UBCM would come forward with some question of policy.

The concept of donating land to the state, of course, was a matter of great philosophical import. The old Lloyd George land socialists were a branch of the original Socialist Party, founded on the concept that equalization of community could come about through common land ownership. They were a major force in the development of the early socialist movement before the turn of the century. Their thesis was that if all land was held in common, such as the native Indians have always done in North America, the acquisitive demands of our more rapacious society would be diminished.

There's a great deal of merit in that, Mr. Speaker. I think that the buying and selling of land is probably one of the most vicious aspects of capitalism; it is certainly one of the most non-productive aspects of capitalism. The idea that land should be staked out, divided and sold for profit is somewhat of the basis within the capitalist society that has….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think it will happen in my lifetime that we begin to see this earth as a global village. Even my party gets hung up on economic nationalism. I've had some questions about that publicly. I don't think there is any difference between an American capitalist, a Canadian capitalist or a Japanese capitalist; they are all capitalists to me. I don't get hung up on that. But there are people who get trapped into that economic nationalist syndrome, the land nationalist syndrome….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure they are. Listen, in this House we've been tagged with that for 40 years, even in Parker Williams' time when he arrived in the early 1900s.

But getting back to the original point: the philosophical drive around a large segment of the intellectual group in the Fabian Society and the development of socialism in Great Britain was related to the concept that land should be held in common ownership.

As I said, a native Indian practice: you can't take it with you, including land. I think the more people in our community begin to realize that land is for common use and for common purpose, the more mature and the more rational our society will be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by telling you a little story about the donation of the land and the land that was involved in Stanley Park. Mayor Oppenheimer of Vancouver, at the turn of the century, fought to keep that whole land mass now known as Stanley Park away from developers, and he had one heck of a fight at that time. Can you imagine anybody going into civic politics in the City of Vancouver today saying, "Vote for me and we'll cut up Stanley Park."?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member talks about the endowment lands as if they were a parkland forever. They were not a parkland forever; they were endowment lands. There's a big difference. They were to provide income from the university, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to dig out that Member's speeches about the use of endowment lands as I recall them.

But nonetheless the fight around land, the fight around parks has now reached the point where more and more people are donating land. This is one small method of recognition. I want to thank the Members for their other suggestions — perhaps even a plaque here in the rotunda listing the names of people who've donated land would be a useful device.

We've come a long way, Mr. Speaker, a long way in only a matter of eight months. When the land bill was debated in this House last spring the concept of government ownership of land was equated to fascism and communism and everything in between. And now, Mr. Speaker, with the passage of time, almost everyone in this province supports the concept and principle in Bill 42 and they've expressed it by this particular action here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't believe it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will the leader whoever he shall be of the official opposition, will the leaders of the Liberal Party and the would-be leaders of the Conservative Party put it on the record now? In the next election will they stand up and say, "Vote for our party and if we're elected to government we will do away with Bill 42."? Let's hear it now, please.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You? You're going to quit in three months. (Laughter.)

Okay, there's one yes. Let's go down the leadership candidates. Okay, "Mr. Shoebanger," yes or no?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Sit down and we'll tell you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. South Okanagan, yes or no? Mr. Cariboo?

[ Page 1072 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'm not in the leadership race. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the first time I've ever heard an MLA admit he's not in it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, how about the North Peace River, yes or no?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I've embarrassed the opposition. I now move second reading of Bill 84, An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 84 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 87, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST
NATIVE COOPERATIVE LOAN ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a better day for this bill to appear. It is the intention of the government to assist the Pacific North Coast cooperative to acquire fishing vessels for its members so as to enable the cooperative to develop a cannery run entirely by the native Indian citizens of the Province of British Columbia.

We have allocated some $3 million to this project. It was a project discussed by the previous administration and brought into fruition by the present government. The federal government refused, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this project, which is not a self-help or make-work project but a pioneering initiative by these native Indians to go into a self-sustaining industry of their own.

Mr. Speaker, this is a departure from the traditional methods of handing out welfare or developing paternalism for the native Indians of British Columbia. This is a direct grant to those people, with the earnest hope that they are successful in the venture.

All native Indians across Canada, of course, will be watching this experiment. We will assist this group in any way possible. However, they will be on their own to make it or break it with this project. If they do make it, let everyone in this province applaud them for that success; if they are not successful, I for one would not appreciate any effort to use this project as a reason for no further experiments in the same line.

The reason we've taken so long before we signed the agreement is that we asked for outside business advice, outside accounting advice and outside technical advice before committing either the government or the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op to this enterprise. We've had the best advice available, we've drawn up the best agreement possible and we think that it will be a success. I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MORRISON: We're very happy to see this project go through. We hope that it is a pilot project and that there will be others, but one item that we would have been a great deal happier about is if the fishermen had had the right to own their own boats rather than to have the boats owned in common by the cooperative.

However, as I said, we're happy to see this project started. We realize that there will be a lot of problems throughout it. I concur with the Premier that we would hate to see this project fail, and as a result jeopardize other projects. We hope and wish that this will be highly successful.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker this has been a project that I hope I've helped in some small way to bring to a fact. What we had to do first of all was undo what had been done and I think that that was something that people mistook to mean that we weren't going to do anything. Some people rejoiced in that because they thought that maybe it was a political opportunity for them to make light of a project that should have been put underway a long time ago.

The original sum of money that was given during the eleventh hour of the former administration was $1 million for this project — $1 million to be given at $200,000 a year over a five-year length of time. Now can you imagine trying to build a cannery over five years with $200,000 a year?

The first year you'd see a bit of fill out in the water; the second year you may see another couple of posts; and at the end of five years you'd be over the last election again.

So we had to look at that, and one of the facts that became obvious very soon was the fact that there was no provision in the original agreement with the previous administration for boats. Now the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) has said that he would like to see the boats privately owned. Well, you know, pretty well every cooperative — and there haven't been that many — that has started in the fishing industry has failed because all the boats were privately owned.

And so we had to ponder that question. How could we make this cannery a success and at the same

[ Page 1073 ]

time have enough flexibility so that people could privately own their own boats and work in this industry and still keep it a cooperative that would be a success?

We, through negotiations with the cooperative people, came to the decision that we can go both ways: we can have a core fleet that would have enough boats in it to ensure that there would be a constant supply of fish to that cooperative so that no matter what, so that if all the members got mad one day and walked off, the co-op would still be there and functioning with that core fleet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think they'd get mad at you?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They wouldn't get mad at you, would they?

HON. MR. LEA: Not mad at us. The thing is that we're not overlooking the possibility that we could lose the next election, then everybody would have to be mad at them. That's the way it would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will. You will.

HON. MR. LEA: Some of the good schemes that we do put in — and there's going to be a great many — if you got back in they'd be ditched.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEA: What we had to do was look at it so that it would be a viable economic unit and at the same time leave enough room so that it could be incentive and direction from the Indian people themselves. So we negotiated with those people and came to an agreement. We didn't arbitrarily say, "We're going to give you $1 million at $200,000 a year, and let it go down the drain."

We had to build a plant that could compete in the market of today, and we had to ensure that that plant had a consistent supply of fish. We have come to an agreement which we think will fulfill that function.

Also, one of the other reasons that cooperatives have gone broke over the years is that management has sometimes been poor. It's been run by a board that had no idea of what the business was all about. So we ensured, by agreement….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: What do you know about fish up there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please address the Chair?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Speaker, even though I am from the north coast of this province, I still feel that we, as government, should have some feeling of responsibility for the northeastern part of this province. As such, I have gone into the northeastern part of this province and talked to the people to try to find out what they want so that we as government can help them reach their dreams and the fulfilment of their economic problems.

I would like to think that people from the northeastern part of the province feel the same way in regard to the northwestern part of the province — and especially the Indian fishermen.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's some fishy business.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right; and thank goodness we are in it with those people so that they can go ahead without the interference of a paternalistic government. We have given them the chance, on their own, to direct their plant. At the same time we are going to even help them get the best manager possible so that it will have a better chance of reaching success.

One of the things that become obvious in the beginning of these negotiations and which hindered them…. I should mention that the only political party that opposed this cannery in principle, even during the election campaign, was the Liberal Party. I hope they do speak on it this time.

Another idea was brewing at the time: the idea of having the cannery at the Cassiar plant in the Inverness slough. When I spoke with the Hon. Jack Davis, the federal Minister, and pointed out to him that there really wasn't a good water supply there for a fish cannery….

MR. PHILLIPS: He's my friend.

HON. MR. LEA: I know. He's my friend, too. He's everybody's friend. We don't count on it, but then he does speak to us. When I spoke with Jack Davis I pointed out to him that there wasn't a good water supply for a cannery at Cassiar, and that every spring when the ice came down the Inverness slough, it washed away the pilings. It just wasn't that good a spot.

To the fact that his own government had said that within two years it would be obsolete because it wouldn't meet pollution standards, he said, "Well, we'll just rip it down and build a new one if that's the case." I said, "If you are going to rip it down and build a new one, why can't you come along with us and go to Port Simpson and help us on that project?"

[ Page 1074 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we're socialists.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. We're socialists. But I think that when all the counts are in, people don't care what you call yourself, Mr. Premier. They don't care whether you call yourself capitalists, socialists — anything you want. All they do is took at what they've got for the money they pay in taxes.

We believe that the Indian people in this province pay taxes and, as such, they deserve this kind of treatment. I hope there isn't any objection from the Liberal Party on this project because then we would have to take a look at some of those corporations that have been getting help in this province over the years.

Please join with me in wishing these people every success. I think that's what we all have to do — even the Liberal Party.

MR. WALLACE: I am no expert on fish but I certainly feel, from what I have read on this project and having studied the details that were made available publicly, that this seems an excellent attempt to create jobs in the area and among the Indian population.

The idea of government conducting some kind of pilot project to make use of the facilities and the boats that are there makes good sense. I understand that we are talking in terms of $730,000 worth of wages a year. Since we have talked frequently in this House about trying to avoid paying welfare and creating jobs where people can be productive and can have some sense of accomplishment through their own individual efforts, this seems to me to typify just that goal, whatever the label.

There are only two questions. I would wonder, in talking about the principle of the bill, whether in fact in any way this creates unfair competition for other people engaged in the fishing industry. The other point I might ask is that, with this kind of incentive — and we are all in favour of incentives — whether there is any danger of over-fishing of certain areas.

I would like perhaps the Minister, in winding up the debate, to just touch on these two points. Is there any possibility that this creates unfair competition, and is there any possibility that it would lead to over-fishing with depletion of resources in that area? I support the bill.

MR. McGEER: I think that all Members of the House welcome this piece of legislation and wish the North Coast Native cooperative every possible success.

I think that along the line in this debate someone should pay a little tribute to the former Member of the Prince Rupert constituency (Mr. W.H. Murray) who was Speaker of the House, who did so much to pave the way for this particular development. You, Sir, know how difficult it is for a Speaker of the assembly to make his point of view known.

This Member, who was the Speaker, lobbied very hard in his quiet, effective way when the Indians themselves first came down proposing this self-help project. It wasn't an easy thing to engineer politically, Mr. Speaker, because it involved the federal jurisdiction; it involved licences for fishing boats; it involved a very competitive industry. It involves all kinds of problems in the placement of this particular cannery.

There were a great many proposals of a competitive nature made by private industry, by government agencies; and all these things had to be worked out. I am so pleased to learn that things have developed to the point where this Act could be brought forward and where an actual start could be made. But I know that the one Member who would have been most pleased to be able to stand in this House and actually vote in favour of this bill was the former Member for Prince Rupert who did so much to lay the groundwork and bring forward the development that is resulting in this bill today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask temporary leave of the House to make a statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is a rare occasion for us in British Columbia to have such a distinguished guest as we have with us on the floor of the House today.

Dr. Linus Pauling is a brilliant chemist and professor, an opponent of nuclear testing and a great humanitarian. He won the Nobel peace prize in chemistry in 1954 and the Nobel peace prize in 1962. He is the holder of the Pasteur Medal, the Grotius Foundation Medal, a fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and a member of the National Research Council, the National Academy of Science and the Guggenheim Foundation.

Dr. Pauling organized a petition of scientists in 1958, urging an end to nuclear testing, signed by 11,000 scientists from around the world and submitted to the United Nations, In the field of science his work in organic protein structure has aided in the study of the polio virus and how it destroys human nerve cells.

Dr. Linus Pauling's book No More War outlines his support for all efforts for peace. He is the only man to have won, singly, two Nobel prizes. He has honoured British Columbia just recently by his assistance at a conference on health care and communications which he has just attended on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

We here in British Columbia have, almost as a single voice, regardless of party, been in the forefront

[ Page 1075 ]

of the opposition to nuclear testing. The previous administration, this administration and all opposition parties have, with common voice in this jurisdiction, been opposed to nuclear testing. That is an unusual thing in itself, and it's a proud record for British Columbia.

With that record of our own it is especially pleasing to have that great humanitarian, Dr. Pauling, with us today, and I ask the House to welcome him.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the official opposition, we, too, wish to welcome Dr. Pauling to our midst. This has been a rare occasion that we have such a distinguished visitor, and we commend him for his work. We wish him well in the future. May he enjoy good health, and may he continue to bring forth many new innovations which will make this whole world a better place to live in.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party would like to add their welcome to Dr. Pauling. It's a fantastic occasion for us to have three Nobel prize winners here in such a short time — Dr. Eccles, with one, and Dr. Pauling, with two. I, like every other college student, I suppose, struggled through the "Chemical Bond," which was the great contribution of Dr. Pauling to undergraduate study in chemistry. But now he's come forward with something that's much easier to understand, the human bond, and it's for that that we congratulate him in his presence here today.

MR. WALLACE: The Conservative Party would also like to add its welcome and its respect to Dr. Pauling, who is, above all else, an outstanding humanitarian. If the world ever needed people clearly aware of the needs of the human individual, it is now. We respect the work you have done, Dr. Pauling, through you, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that your voice will continue both against the use of nuclear testing and, in an even more positive way, in your continuing research into some of the ill-understood medical problems of ageing. You're a great example, sir, of your own beliefs. I understand you follow your own advice and take large doses of vitamins every day, and as a physician I think we'll watch your longevity increase.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence in this unusual precedent of a private Member of the opposition speaking at this time, but the Hon. Premier pointed out with pride on behalf of all British Columbians the fact that we as a people have been very much in the forefront in administration and thinkers in opposing nuclear testing and nuclear armaments. But I would like to have the privilege of pointing out to Mrs. Pauling that we are also very much in the forefront in our concern for women in British Columbia. We've had a schizophrenic philosophy here: One thought is that behind every great man there was a very surprised woman. But we also find that beside every great man there is a great woman. On behalf of the Members of this House, I'm sure the Premier and the people of British Columbia, Mrs. Pauling, would like to welcome you to British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I earlier brought to your attention that Dr. Pauling would be able to meet with any of you who are taking a short break in the Members' lounge. I hope that someone will stay and carry on the business of the province.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to this bill in second reading, I've listened with interest to the comments of the Premier, the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and other Members who have taken their place in this particular debate, and I couldn't help but cast my mind back a little over a year ago to a time prior to the August election in 1972, a time when the then Member for Prince Rupert was the silent Member in the House as far as the debate was concerned, Mr. Speaker, because he occupied the same position that you now occupy. As you very well know, it is very difficult for a Speaker to participate in any way in the debate or speak on behalf of his own ideas or his own constituency. It was for that reason that from time to time other Members of the party brought before the attention of this House certain matters with respect to the Prince Rupert area, with respect to highways and particularly with respect to this particular proposed project at Port Simpson.

I think I'd like to make a couple of points very clear. Under the administration of the previous government it was never the intent of the government that the $1 million promised to the people of the north coast district council would be here-all or end-all, or that that was all the money that they could expect. As a matter of fact, they were told and told very clearly that the $1 million that would be available to them from the First Citizens' Fund was a start, just a start, and that, furthermore, it was the intent of the government of that time to bring into the House at the next session of the Legislature a development corporation which would have been available to their new project and that money would have been available on a loan basis, starting at an interest rate of 1 per cent, continuing from that point at 2 per cent, and so on, with the right to repay at any time.

So it's not only the present administration that is concerned about the Indians of northwestern British Columbia. It was certainly the intent of the former administration to help this group as much as possible

[ Page 1076 ]

to become more efficient, and become employers themselves so that they could be in a position of helping themselves.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would you take a motion and we'll have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, if it's the will of the House that we have a short recess, I simply need to declare a short recess.

MR. SMITH: I would be prepared to take my place, Mr. Speaker, if you would so declare.

MR. SPEAKER: I so declare.

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 4:18 p.m.

MR. SMITH: Just prior to the interlude that we were able to take for a few minutes to meet with Dr. Pauling and his wife — which was very pleasant — I was speaking about Bill 87, which is an Act to provide certain moneys to the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative. Certain speakers before me in this debate had indicated the position of the former government, I felt, a little incorrectly, and I brought those things to the attention of the House so that they would be on the record.

I think it is a matter of note that the former Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. W.H. Murray) was very active in the field of promoting this cannery, and I'd like to read just briefly from a copy of Indian Voice, which was published in August of 1972:

"The North Coast District Council and the people that they represent along the coast and central interior of the province are expressing their gratitude today to the First Citizens' Fund, to the government of the province and to all of those who helped to bring the Port Simpson fish-processing plant to this stage of progress.

"Reality now is assured and, while criticism has come from many quarters, we have had the continuing support of our own Member of the Legislature, Bill Murray, chairman of the First Citizens' Fund, Hon. Dan Campbell and the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Cyril M. Shelford. It is to those people especially that we wish to express our grateful thanks for their untiring efforts on our behalf."

I won't continue reading from the editorial from this particular edition of Indian Voice. But I think it is important to point out that no party in this House has a monopoly on the idea of providing help to the Indian people of the province. Most of us, if we reflect at all on the position of the Indians in the Province of British Columbia and, as a matter of fact, in all parts of Canada, will have to admit that we took far more from them than we have ever returned to them. Bills of this nature will, perhaps, in a small way, help to offset the debt that we owe the Indian people in the Province of British Columbia. Most of them allowed us to occupy this province without war being involved. They assimilated their lives and tried to live the way they wanted to live even though civilization, as we see civilization, was moving in on them in increasing measure.

It is pleasing to know that a group of Indian people, who for generations back harvested the sea, will be given help through this bill to not only build a cannery, but to provide fishing craft which they will use in the harvest process. I feel that it would have been better for the Indian people to own their own craft but, perhaps, through the cooperative, this can come to pass at a future date.

It will be interesting to see what position the federal government will take with respect to helping finance this project because certainly they have been contacted. They were asked by the previous administration to help through the ARDA programme. The present Minister is certainly aware of the project, the Hon. Jack Davis. I would hope that, whatever the Hon. Minister may personally feel, he will set aside any prejudice that he seems to have against either this government or the former government and elect in favour of the Indian people of this province and provide assistance through whatever programme he has at his disposal under the federal Acts of the Dominion of Canada.

This is a step in the right direction where we provide funds to help people help themselves, whether they be the native Indians or any other branch of our society. I heartily endorse the principle of this bill.

MR. GARDOM: It's interesting — and I'm delighted to see the Members of the official opposition support the measure as was enunciated very loudly and clearly by the former speaker — but I'm talking about the overall assistance to the Indian community, which I think was very sadly lacking under the former administration. But I don't intend to dwell upon old bones.

I think that any measure that we can possibly bring about to see the eventual economic emancipation of the Indian people in our province, whatever we can do equip them with the means to cope, the capacity to cope and the means to become a part of British Columbia in every sense, will certainly be in the interest, not only of all British Columbians and of the Indian community, but in the interests of fair play and the well-being of all people.

[ Page 1077 ]

There's a continuing burr under the saddle of the Indian community and a continuing inequality and a continuing injustice and discrimination — and I do hope that I have the ear of the Hon. Premier on this point because he has in the past been receptive to the requirements for B.C. Indians. I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, about the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.

I find it exceptionally unfortunate that we don't see included in this legislation a reference to the repeal of that particular bill. It's the only legislation of its kind in Canada. It's to the very simple and startling effect that the control and disposal and ownership of minerals and mineral claims in Indian reserves are subject totally to B.C. laws, with the power to the B.C. Department of Mines to collect all revenues, whether by way of purchase or rent or royalties or what-have-you in any way dealing with the sale or disposition of minerals and mineral claims upon Indian reserves.

This is a totally discriminatory measure, and it's even more so to the effect that it's confiscation or expropriation without compensation. We find that the revenues, if any, under this peculiar and very harsh piece of legislation are to be divided between the provincial government and the federal government, without any rights at all to the Indian community to share in them.

When the Hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate, I'd be most appreciative if he would indicate to me his comments and attitudes on the points which I've been mentioning. I'm sorry that he's engrossed in other matters — and I'm not being critical when I say that — but just to recant for his purposes, because I can see now, Mr. Speaker, that I do have his ear. I'm sure, by virtue of that fact, that he would welcome me to just indicate to him the measures that I….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Recount.

MR. GARDOM: Recount. Sorry, recount.

I was saying that it was very unfortunate that we didn't see in this legislation nor have we had any statement from the government on the repeal of the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, which purely and simply is to the effect that the mineral resources in Indian reserve land are owned by the province and divided by the province and the federal government.

It's a gross injustice to the Indian community, and I appreciate the fact that it's not in this statute.

However, the Premier, being a man of compassion — I'm sure he's going to refer to it in a couple of seconds.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I wasn't listening, because you were out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that this is just a fantastic day here in the British Columbia Legislature. And I think it's more fantastic when you realize, Mr. Speaker, what a great victory the north coast native Indians have won here today — or when this agreement was signed. It's fantastic because they, alone, were able to stand in this province and fight off the principle of the socialist government opposite in wanting to have their fingers into the operation of this co-op. They alone have done it. We, as opposition, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to ruin things for them?

MR. PHILLIPS: We, Mr. Speaker, as opposition, have continually fought in this Legislature the principle involved in this very bill. Loan the money to the people, let them run their own affairs. That's what we've been saying all along. Either give them an outright grant or loan them the money, but keep your own sticky fingers out of the management of their affairs.

This bill is a breakthrough and I thank heavens Mr. Speaker, that the north coast native Indians have won this battle in this Legislature here today.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was very emphatic when he introduced the bill. I'm not sure whether I misheard him or he made a faux pas, but I hope the Premier is paying attention and will answer me when he closes the debate. I wrote down what he said — and he didn't just say this, Mr. Speaker, he stated emphatically that this money was an outright donation. Now I think he meant that this money was an outright loan.

I want the Minister of Finance to explain this, Mr. Speaker, because the bill doesn't say that it's an outright donation; the bill says that it is to finance a loan to the cooperative.

But the beautiful thing about it is that it is a loan and the government is not going to go in there and tell this cooperative how to run their affairs. It's a great principle and it's a great breakthrough.

I'm certainly with the native Indians here today that they, as I said, have been able to ward off the socialist theory that they've got to stick their fingers in and try to tell people how to run their business. I just hope that the farmers will be able to have the same breakthrough, that when the government wants to loan them money they will loan them the money and not go in and say, "Look, we're going to come in as equal partners so we make sure you never go broke."

The Premier touched on the second great principle here that I have been saying in this House before. He said, "They are on their own to make it or break it."

[ Page 1078 ]

That is beautiful. That is the way it should be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's just like this little government.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the way it should be. You know, I've spent hours in this House, Mr. Speaker, on this very principle. Hours trying to get through, trying to make the Minister of Finance see it.

When he brought in his Industrial Development Act I pleaded with the Minister, I begged the Minister of Finance to accept this little principle: loan them the money at low interest rates; if you want to give them a grant, forgive some of the repayments. And all of a sudden, out of a clear, blue sky, here on this great Tuesday afternoon in this Legislature, there is finally a breakthrough. The Minister of Finance has finally seen the light.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not on television, Don.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hold it, hold it.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). I want to tell you that in his very riding the Department of Agriculture is going to put a poultry processing plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll process roosters.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Ministry of Roosters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we quote you on that?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now under our constitution is the Member for Shuswap going to be able to do business with this government-owned poultry processing plant? Are they going to be in there and are they going to have a say in the operation, or are they going to adhere to this wonderful principle here and loan the poultry processing plant money so that they can run the plant and, as the Premier so ably put it, "Make it or break it on their own"?

It's a wonderful principle. This is the principle involved in the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. Are the farmers going to be loaned the money to make it or break it on their own? That, Mr. Speaker, is the principle involved in Bill 87.

I'm not going to prolong the debate any longer, but I certainly want to congratulate this cooperative, this group of natives who have been able to break the will, to break the spirit, to make the breakthrough in the policies of the socialist government, a policy that we in opposition have preached and preached and preached in this House, and will continue, Mr. Speaker, to preach.

I want once again to congratulate this particular co-op. I want to say how happy I am for them and I want to say that I hope some of the other Members of the cabinet will realize what a principle is involved here. I hope they will listen to the Minister of Finance when he says, "They are on their own to make it or break it. And if they fail, this does not mean that this will be the last donation."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of make-or-break has been thrown around, but as I read this particular bill I understand that we're loaning them money to pay themselves. It's a completely internal operation, so maybe they'll both make and break because there's a net injection of $3 million worth of money to these individuals.

I understand the purpose, of course, is to establish a fleet for the Fort Simpson cannery. The Minister of Finance nods his head, and I thank him for that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you should see what else I can do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question that comes up is: what happens if the numbers of members of the cooperative owning boats are inadequate to give the Fort Simpson cannery a fleet adequate to fish for the cannery itself? In other words, if there are 150 boats which the members own and which this bill covers, what happens to the other 50 required, or what happens in the way of acquiring the other 50 that are required to get a viable fleet together?

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance would like to comment on this further. Are we to expect assistance at some future time in terms of money to purchase boats outside of the membership itself? Because this bill is entirely restricted to the membership itself.

One other quick question which perhaps the Minister will reply to when he closes the debate is a question of interest on this loan. He has made it perfectly clear that if it's lost, it's lost. That's fair enough when it comes to a loan. But if it is to be repaid, what are the repayment terms? I wonder whether he would comment on that and let us know prior to the vote on this what type of terms he is insisting upon for repayment;

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words on this bill and on some of the comments, particularly from that non-leadership candidate in the far corner from South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not leadership material yourself.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, apparently you made that decision for the Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 1079 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Some of the comments that have been made, Mr. Speaker, would indicate….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have no dictatorship here. It's different from the previous administration. The fact that we are bringing in this type of bill, Mr. Speaker, shows the entire difference in philosophy and difference in attitude. That Member for South Peace River, well, when his government was in office here they failed to recognize the cooperative movement. They failed to recognize that a cooperative is genuine economic democracy — one member, one vote. And each member has shared in the overall operation. If money is made, it's shared by all the members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: And for that reason Mr. "Yappy" across there, Mr. "Yappy" does not recognize that whether the individuals own the boats themselves or if they're owned collectively by the cooperative, they're still owned by the members. So we're not hung up on some details like that.

But we are hung up on the fact that for the 20 years that the Social Credit were in power in this province one cooperative went bankrupt for each year; 20 cooperatives went broke in the 20 years.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we have some order until the Member finishes his remarks?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go buy the Glenshiel Hotel again.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Twenty cooperatives went broke in the 20 years they were there, so this blessing is 20 years late. Actions speak louder than words. The words you speak today are pretty empty. If you had really meant what you are saying, you'd have been doing something about it.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which airplane, Bill?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Today this is real competition. This is the only really genuine competition that the corporate enterprise in the fishing industry has seen in recent times. And one of the reasons that the fishermen of the north are doing as well as they are is because of that very thing — cooperative enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the new day in this province. There is a government here that is recognizing that true economic democracy is being built through the cooperatives. Through a proper cooperative there's no political involvement, and that cooperative, if set up properly, will carry on long beyond the day of this government, regardless of how long they live.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister closes the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a tough act to follow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What can I say? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do think that there are a couple of points that I must respond to.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) today has announced a new policy and enterprise that this government will seriously consider. Under this cooperative approach he said the government has learned to let people sink or swim; give them the money and let them go their own way. We're going to consider this principle beyond the fish cannery. We'll seriously consider opening a cooperative car sales agency in Dawson Creek. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing like a little bit of competition. (Laughter.) And having learned these new economic principles from the Member for South Peace River, if that's Social Credit, we're all for it — the People's Co-op Car Sales.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we won't flounder around. We'll save our souls. We won't allow any carping criticism. We won't drag any red herrings across this trail. No, Mr. Speaker, the People's cooperative Car Sales in Dawson Creek will become a reality.

MR. PHILLIPS: Know a good used car salesman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know any good used car salesmen. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the welfare rolls in that constituency may be added to by a certain Member but we could rehabilitate him.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I want to answer some of the more serious criticism of the bill. One-half of the Conservative caucus asked about unfair competition to other people. There is no such thing as unfair competition in free enterprise, is there?

Do you mean to say that those people who espouse free enterprise would actually say that there are situations where there is unfair competition?

[ Page 1080 ]

Why, that's what they believe in, those free enterprisers in that jungle. What's a little price fix here and a little arrangement there between friends?

If the "price fix here and an arrangement there, and here a deal and there a deal and everywhere a deal, deal" gets broken up because a cooperative comes in for a little competition, I think that's healthy. The one thing free enterprise can't stand, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of competition.

It's the one thing they don't like. Everything else they like. So there will be a little bit of competition from the people over fishing? That's controlled by the federal government and so are the licences. I must say that regardless of party affiliations most of us have a great deal of respect for the job the federal fisheries department has done with short staff and short budgets in maintaining good conservation methods.

Now the other questions — what about other injustices or other expenses to native Indian people? We will consider each project on its merit. We will consider any approach that is an alternative to social welfare. Any approach that can be shown to us to be a viable, business alternative is something that we will consider here in the province related to allowing these self-help programmes to be developed.

It is true that the former Speaker (Mr. Murray) did do a great deal of pioneering work on this project. As a matter of fact, I remember listening to the radio programme in Prince Rupert after we had criticized the payment plan offered by the government. I remember hearing Bill Murray saying on the radio: "I can't understand why the opposition is criticizing us. After 20 years we are finally doing something for Indians and they are criticizing us." That was an admission in itself, Mr. Speaker. It certainly was an unintentional slip.

But it is true. Everybody talks about helping the native Indians and now we are doing it. We hope that they will be successful. The efforts we have made have been designed to assist them as much as possible to avoid pitfalls when they exist.

When they decide on a brand name and when they actually are producing, I would hope that all government purchasing services would examine closely the particular products put out by these people. It won't be just canned salmon. It will be bottom fish. It will be crabs. It will be all other types of seafood. The flexibility will be built into the cannery itself to adjust seasonally to different products. Perhaps with a good promotional background, they could go into the delicacy field as well. It is in that area that the greatest profits can be made. Especially to off-shore markets.

Interjection.

HON . MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, it is true that they will have to continue to can red salmon and pink salmon but that is no reflection on the socialist government. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Whitefish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whitefish? Well, that was different at one time. It was difficult to sell white salmon in cans until a PR man discovered how to approach this problem. They put on the label "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can". (Laughter.) There were phenomenal sales of that salmon right afterwards. We could say that about the Socreds. Despite everything we do to educate them: "guaranteed not to turn pink, " (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: In the can! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the can! You didn't let me finish. Mr. Speaker, get that man's name. (Laughter.) It is certainly a matter of pride for every Member of this House. All of us have expressed the desire to approach the economic problems of the native Indian people in a much more mature and much more rational manner.

It is interesting that if even just a few years ago such an effort was attempted by any jurisdiction, the latent prejudice against native Indians would have made it difficult for a Legislature to pass this kind of bill without the unanimous consent, that is obvious.

There is an abiding, lasting impression about native Indians that is absolutely false — the feeling that those of us who live in the west are guilty of in terms of our prejudices. There are still people out there who believe the native Indians are not as clever as white people. There are still people out there who believe that native Indians are indolent. There are still people out there who believe that as racial characteristics they are not able to be as skilled as us "white men" are.

Those are absolute falsehoods, Mr. Speaker. The native Indian people have a different culture and a far superior culture than anything the white man has shown in North America. The native people have a love of land and a love of nature that those of us who have come to this country through succeeding generations have yet to appreciate and even emulate.

With this move we are asking the native Indian people to accept, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, a small token of repayment or a small token of perhaps even guilt relief for the way we have treated these people in the past. We wish them all good answers. They will be involved in an industry that is close to their own culture.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are they going to be paying interest?

[ Page 1081 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: They may not and they may. The interest rates will be minimal. We will see as they go how things go along. We have established no rigid formula. We are prepared to write off the $3 million but that's the last thing they desire and it is the last thing we desire. They want to make it go.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're flexible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're flexible. We are very flexible. As the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said, and Liberal Party members and the Conservatives and our own Members here — this is a good day. Really a good day. The province can well afford it. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 87 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's a very simple piece of legislation. (Laughter). A housekeeping bill. No blank-cheque legislation. No sweeping powers. None of the adjectives that have been used so freely during this session can be applied to this particular bill. This legislation is intended to give effect to a decision of the government earlier this year to establish a new department of government to be known as the Department of Transport and Communications.

Other jurisdictions all across Canada, in recent years, have found it necessary to establish a department similar to the Department of Transport and Communications in the Province of British Columbia.

Much of this bill involved the purely transitional arrangements that are involved in the creation of such a department. For instance, the department and my responsibilities as Minister include the administration branch which was part of the old Department of Commercial Transport; the Motor Vehicle Branch which, until the creation of this department, was with the Attorney General; the motor carrier branch, which was a function of the Public Utilities Commission; the B.C. Ferries which has been with Highways; the operation of the British Columbia government aircraft which, until recently, has been divided between two departments with some of the planes being handled by the Department of Lands and others by the Department of Highways; the British Columbia government telephones, the internal telephone system that was with Public Works, is now part of my responsibilities as Minister; the external communications service which was with the Public Utilities Commission is now part of my duties; and the data-processing centre which was with the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is now part of the new Department of Transport and Communications.

Since being given this new department, I have attended a number of meetings. Arising out of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, which I attended with other Ministers and the Premier, came some references to the western transportation Ministry. Just recently I attended a meeting in Ottawa with the federal Minister (Hon. Mr. Marchand) in which we discussed an analysis of rail cost and pricing programmes for standardization of western highways, the development of northern routes, the development of aviation services and facilities, as well as port improvements.

The progress made by this committee, which was composed of the four western Ministers, included the examination, especially in the context of the commitments made at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, of the relevant aspects of the national transportation system, the governing legislation, the pricing practices of carriers, other carrier actions, and necessary transport, development with a view to determining whether they stimulate or inhibit social and economic development, particularly the growth of secondary industry and the processing at the source of raw materials originating in the western region.

As the Minister of Transport, it will be part of my function to be the liaison officer in bringing together the different aspects of the different forms of transportation operating in the Province of British Columbia.

Even in the area of roads and highways alone, when we look over the operations of government, we find there are actually four different government departments involved in road construction or operations in one way or another: the old Department of Commercial Transport had jurisdiction over industrial roads; the department of forestry has money within its budget to build and create forestry roads; the Department of Mines also has a say on where mining roads shall go; and, of course, the Department of Highways. Very often these different agencies haven't known what the others were doing. Very often forestry roads were built, let go or allowed to deteriorate without reference to the overall requirements of the community and without reference to the eventual needs of the province as a whole.

We've already set up a committee of the four departments to try and bring some rationale into that

[ Page 1082 ]

aspect of road construction so that different departments are not going off on their own and having roads built without reference to the future needs of the Province of British Columbia and eventual highway requirements.

The legislation allows, by permission of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to acquire or obtain a variety of things. I point out that in the past, in the field of transportation, the government of this province has found it in the public interest to acquire by purchase, for instance, a number of privately-owned ferries that have been operating in various areas of the coast. The power that was enjoyed and used by the previous administration is contained in a section of this bill which points out what is required to carry out the duties, powers and functions: "the Minister may…purchase, lease…. ." and so on. That particular power was used time and time again to purchase or acquire ferry systems operating in the Province of British Columbia. Apart altogether from the original Black Ball ferry purchase, there was the Mill Bay ferry, the Gabriola Island ferry, the Island Princess and a number of others up and down the coast that have been acquired.

I've also an interest in the new field of communications. I attended meetings of the western Ministers of communications from the other provinces, and a few weeks ago attended a meeting of all of the provincial Ministers of communications. Later this month I will be attending a meeting in Ottawa of the 10 provincial Ministers of communications when we meet with the federal Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Pelletier) to discuss the Green Paper which he released a year or so ago.

For an indication of the requirement and why other provinces have found it necessary to set up departments of communications, I think I could refer to this book, Instant World, which is prepared by the federal Deputy Minister of Communications (Mr. Gotlieb) and published in 1971. There are three paragraphs that I think the House should be aware of and should be read into the record to indicate why other provinces, before we did, found it necessary to set up a department of communications within the provincial cabinet.

As I say, I'm quoting from the report on Telecommunications in Canada prepared by the federal Deputy Minister of Communications, and this is what the report says:

"It seems probable that nobody, however deeply committed to the benefits of private enterprise, would deny that the implementation of telecommunications policy requires at least some governmental supervision and, for certain purposes, direct involvement. It should be clearly understood, in this context, that 'government' means the effective authority; in Canada, the effective authority may lie, in any particular matter, within the jurisdiction of parliament, or of the provinces, or of both conjointly. Thus, while there is clearly a national dimension in telecommunications policy, differences in regional, provincial, and municipal needs and attitudes can also be taken into account.

"Governments are naturally concerned with telecommunications as an instrument essential to national defence, to the provision of safety services, and to the handling of emergencies. Further, if the 'right to communicate' is to mean anything in a country where many essential telecommunications services are provided by private enterprise enjoying protection from competition, governments will be concerned to see that those services are responsive to public demand over as wide a range as possible, and equally responsive to social and technological change.

" The emerging technology of telecommunications offers the possibility of an eventual network affording universal access to the means of transmitting and receiving information in virtually any conceivable form." I think I should mention that that is what this bill is about: "the means of transmitting and receiving information."

"Although this concept is already technically feasible, the practicability and rate of its implementation are limited to a large extent by existing telecommunications plant and facilities which were designed for more limited services. The development of new facilities must also be related to the amount of capital and other resources that can be related to the amount of capital and other resources that can be made available in Canada. There is an obvious danger that, in the transitional period, the nature and pace of development may be dictated by the most powerful private interests. An objective of telecommunications policy may therefore be to ensure that access to services and innovation in response to public needs are not unreasonably retarded by the weight of investment in existing facilities."

I think those three paragraphs indicate why it's important that we do have a department of communications in this province, as I say, as other provinces have done. Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland all have a Minister in charge of the responsibility of communications in this field.

A Minister from every single province in the country was present at the meeting in Moncton a few weeks ago. That conference unanimously approved two resolutions: the first states that effective

[ Page 1083 ]

resolution of communications issues requires political solution rather than referral to the courts; the second establishes continuing arrangements for interprovincial cooperation. This step confirms the usefulness of the on-going collaboration which was initiated at an earlier meeting a year ago.

In addition, the Ministers discussed a variety of communications matters, including the Quebec cable regulations, educational communications, legal issues in cable television, and the decentralization of public computer facilities.

It's a fairly comprehensive field. As I say, there was a Minister there from every province in Canada; every government in the country recognizes this important new area. The federal government initiated the federal-provincial discussions, and, when we meet with the federal group at the end of this month, I hope to arrive at some understanding as to what the future holds and where responsibility will lie.

This particular piece of legislation, in the light of the uncertainty as to the responsibilities we may be desirous of acquiring, depending on what the federal Minister proposes, allows us to move in those fields upon agreement with the federal administration.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised to hear the Minister lead off on Bill 64 by saying it's just a very minor piece of legislation to reorganize the Department of Transport and Communications.

It is really, Mr. Speaker, a takeover bill that this government is so very good at doing. It brings a whole new approach to government in this province. Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill, like so many others, is designed around the concept of a blank cheque for the Minister, because the power can be conferred by order-in-council and not by this Legislature, which it should be.

The previous bills in this province have always restricted the power of the Minister, and this bill certainly doesn't do that. The bill before us, Bill 64, to set up the Department of Transport and Communications, is certainly not a simple department organizational bill. This confers power on this Minister not by the Legislature, as I said earlier, but by order-in-council.

This Minister, Mr. Speaker, is already a super, super Minister. Apart from the power he is seeking in this bill he is already the Minister in charge of the B.C. ferries, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia — and it is proposed that he be on the directorate of the British Columbia Railroad.

Mr. Speaker, the normal answers of the NDP to criticism of a bill such as this are that the bill "has to be flexible to meet unknown circumstances. It is in the statute but we do not contemplate using it at this time. We need the power because we might have a future agreement with Ottawa," or, as the Premier usually states, "Trust us." They fall back on that.

Mr. Speaker, communications, as described in the definition section of this bill, is any method, manner and means by which information is transmitted, reported or exchanged, Obviously this relates to the press, telegraph and telephone systems, radio, cablevision, magazines and periodicals, movie theatres and text books.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition cannot see why they want the power to take over the press. They have a very favourable press in this province. We oppose this bill on the basis that it would be a waste of public funds to take over the press here because they are already very favourable to these people.

Certainly the people of British Columbia did not intend to confer the powers on this government in the election of 1972 that they are seeking through the authority of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

This bill could be the device for a vast bureaucratic structure. Section 6 (b) together with section 6 (d) implies that the Minister could act to purchase or acquire and then return to the Legislature for capital sums for capital requirements.

He could, for instance, go and take over Westcoast Transmission, the pipeline, or Pacific Western Airlines. Of course, this will be the route that they will follow for the takeover of the B.C. Telephone Company. Another line they haven't got their hands on yet would be the Greyhound Bus Lines. In all, this bill would give them the power to acquire these at whatever the Minister decided to pay for them — and return to the Legislature and report it.

Acquisitions and purchases contemplated by this statute provide for no methods of compensation, no procedures of expropriation, nor reference to the courts.

In section 5 (b) there is reference to inventory. It could easily be the basis for entry into any business in this province, at the will of the Minister, for stocktaking for the purpose of a takeover.

Confidentiality, whether corporate or personal, can be totally destroyed under this section. Now look at section 8 of this Act and it suggests all kinds of possibilities: a joint socialist information bureau involving British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; joint activities in any aspect of the communications transportation fields between the same jurisdictions; joint ownership of communications and transportation facilities between the three jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition vigorously opposes Bill 64 and certainly will be voting against it in all stages through the House. We will not give this Minister the power that is requested in this bill Already this Minister has made a mess of the operation of the B.C. ferry system, and this government has made a bigger mess of the operation of the British Columbia Railroad in the year 1973.

[ Page 1084 ]

Regarding messes and the B.C. ferries, this year they will probably have a deficit of $3 million, and that's the biggest ever. And pretty soon we won't even have a place to have a decent meal on them under the guidance of this Minister.

I think it is far more serious, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the British Columbia Railroad, which is certainly a key transportation link in this province. The Premier has told us that it has always lost money but the financial statements show differently. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this railroad this year will show a real deficit because of the mismanagement of this railroad.

All during 1973 they haven't had any boxcars. The railroad has lost a lot of money but the citizens of the Interior and north part of this province have lost millions because they could not consummate sales of goods from the central and northern Interior and, more specifically, in the forest products industry.

The economy of the central Interior is coming to almost a stop because of the inefficient management of this railroad. I want to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C. Railway has already lost a number of permanent large shippers that they'll never get back because they're considered to be a completely unreliable line of transportation. How can you sell the forest products on the world markets and give delivery commitments and rely on the British Columbia Railroad? They would never get them there. Now they have gone to alternate sources of transportation, and it is my information they intend to stay with other methods of transportation. This is most unfortunate for all the people of British Columbia.

The opposition will never approve this bill, Mr. Speaker, because this Minister has already made a mess of the responsibility he has had. We are opposing this bill because it will only add further chaos to the new areas of jurisdiction he will be given. Certainly, speaking for the official opposition, as I said earlier, we will oppose it every step down the road, section by section.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Member has a question? Perhaps he would like to pose it to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, this is truly an unusual step for this government to have taken — unusual in the normal scheme of things but, perhaps, not unusual for this government. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is evident that the government had to find a place for the Hon. Minister and chose this particular technique of providing him with a department, a department which in itself, under the bill, has very limited powers so far as doing anything in any concrete way with regard to either transportation or communications. I'm speaking of the department, Mr. Speaker.

The startling thing about the legislation is the power that it gives to the Minister. In one specific section of the legislation, one very short, six-and-a-half-line section, the Minister is to be the residuum of all duties and powers. The department itself can carry on investigations, can develop policies, can perform some specific functions as between departments of government, but the real authority and power is placed solely in the hands of one man — the Minister. This I find to be a surprising and objectionable section to this legislation.

When opening this debate, the Minister quoted the words of a federal civil servant, a man of great distinction in his particular field — a field, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has by virtue of the British North America Act. That is their responsibility, and I would expect that the federal department and the Deputy Minister of that department, as a consequence, have a deep knowledge of the problems facing, particularly, communication in this country. It's something which we do not have in the Province of British Columbia, and it isn't our responsibility to have it in the Province of British Columbia. Yet by this Act we are placing it in the hands of a single Minister.

Truly national conferences are being held with the representatives of each of the 10 provinces to meet with the national government to discuss important technological and, as the Deputy Minister said in his brief, social changes in this country and the impact that new methods of communication are having upon our society.

Certainly all provinces sent the Ministers to those conferences. It would be inappropriate for them to do otherwise. But, Mr. Speaker, those provinces don't have separate departments with Ministers specifically charged with the responsibilities that are given to this Minister under this legislation. Nothing that may be discussed at those national conferences and certainly nothing which was said by the Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in opening this debate on second reading convinces me of the need for a special department having the responsibilities which are contained in this particular bill.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The province, certainly, must be aware of what is going on. The province must play its role in the matter of communication control — a role which it can only discharge together with other provinces and the national government. This is one area which should be left to the national government for its legislative function, based upon the advice that the federal Minister may receive from Ministers from each of the 10 provinces, but not to go off with our own separate department charged with the responsibilities, as I say, that are placed in the hands of this particular

[ Page 1085 ]

Minister.

I don't share the concern of the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) that the government is going to take over the press, going to buy out newspapers in this province. The press of this province is too responsible to allow that to happen. If the government were to buy out every newspaper that we have, the very following day responsible citizens of this province and of our communities would start new newspapers, because neither this government nor any other is going to stifle the freedom to disseminate information that has been a hallmark of liberty in all democratic countries. So I don't have that concern.

I do have concern as to the power that may be exercised by this Minister under this department to control other modern and more effective means of communicating information and ideas in this province.

We know that other provinces of Canada have been in conflict with the national government concerning the control of television channels and cablevision which take information and ideas into virtually every home in every one of our communities. My fear rests that in this legislation this Minister and this government — and succeeding governments — will have the power and authority to control that most devastating influence upon our lives today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The CRTC controls it now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the CRTC controls it now for the national interest. (Laughter.) Yes — applicable to every one of 10 provinces, so that there is a national concern. But we are now approaching a situation where we can have 10 organizations in Canada, each exercising in a limited way the functions that the CRTC exercises nationally. I haven't always been in agreement with what the CRTC has done. I know that Members of the government have not been in agreement with what the CRTC has done, As a matter of fact, it has been suggested to me that Members of this government have interfered with the discharge of responsibilities of the CRTC, particularly in their decision not to award a television channel operating out of Victoria.

That is the concern, Mr. Speaker, which we must all have when approaching legislation of this kind on a provincial basis. We can easily show why this little government in this province could use some of the investigative powers in this legislation in order to make sure that communication techniques are used properly in British Columbia. But once that happens and it is done in each of succeeding provinces throughout Canada, we end up with a series of conflicting states with conflicting regulations enabling any individual province to control, as I say, the free flow of information and ideas within the province. Once you start to control information and ideas within the province, Mr. Speaker, you invariably control or interfere with the free dissemination of information as between the provinces.

We have no way of controlling what happens south of the international boundary, and I trust that we never ever will wish to acquire those powers. But the Minister here, under this legislation, with the breadth of definition that we find with respect to communications, is being given the present opportunity to embark on just such a course of action within this province.

Newspapers are important. Radio is important. Television is important. All of these media come within the ambit of responsibility given to this Minister. I again come back to this: the function and powers of the department are sketchy, but the functions and powers of the Minister are limitless under this legislation.

Are we to find that the educational television channels in British Columbia are to fall under the administration of this Minister? Will he be permitted, in the discharge of that function, to determine the content of material which will be transmitted into our schools? Mr. Speaker, I don't wish this for this Minister; I don't wish this for any Minister of any government in this country.

I hope the Minister, when he closes this debate, can satisfy the concerns that I have. Certainly he did not do anything to allay those concerns or fears — in fact they are fears — when he opened the debate.

It is intriguing when you look at some of the specific powers given in the Act with regard to investigations. The Minister can appoint individuals having extensive powers under the public inquiries Act. They even go farther than that: they allow this Minister to appoint persons to make inquiries of any member of the public service and to insist upon answers to questions which may be posed to the public servants.

Why is this special power given to this Minister under this legislation? Are we to find that this Minister can delve into matters which are deemed to be confidential by other members of the government? What is so compelling about the communication and transportation system in this province to give this Minister these powers? Those are the assurances I need to have from the Minister when he closes the debate before he will encourage me to support the second reading.

MR. WALLACE: If there are any two factors in our modern society which have changed the whole face of society, they must surely be (1) mobility of peoples and (2) communication.

Many of the crises that erupted around the world not too many years ago would not have been

[ Page 1086 ]

communicated to the rest of the world for some considerable time, and solutions would have been different. This is not, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that it would be good to go back to the old times; I'm not suggesting that for one moment. But I am just trying to preface my criticism of this bill with that very fundamental recognition that of the two what we might call modern advances of our society in the last 20 or 30 years, assuredly mobility and communication have to be perhaps the two overriding features of our lives which have changed the whole complexion of the way in which we live. With an increasing population, perhaps greater demands on transportation and communication are a natural consequence.

With this tremendous facility which human beings now have to move from one place to another, whether it be by airplane or rail or otherwise, and the immediacy with which citizens in one building or in one continent or on one planet can communicate with each other, we suddenly have two dramatic factors through which governments or individuals or groups of individuals can exert tremendous influence on each other and on the rest of the world. That very tremendous potential in these two factors of transportation and communication being so, we would have to approach this, of all measures of legislation, with great hesitancy in terms of not only the amount of power in the bill but the degree to which that great degree of power, with such tremendous potential to influence people, should not be restricted to one or two or a few people.

If we had to oppose this bill for any one singular reason, it would certainly be because of section 4, which makes it quite clear that the duties, powers and functions of the Minister related to transportation and communication could be assigned to him by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet.

If anyone is not convinced of the tremendous influence of communication in our society, surely for a moment one should think about the present problems in the country to the south of us and all the ramifications of the Watergate situation which, in large measure, became exposed and the centre of world-wide controversy because of some of the facilities of modern communication, such as bugging of telephones and taping of conversations, and the use of all the electronic media, which only a few years ago, if they did exist, were certainly not in the sophisticated style that is available today. I'm sure also that many of us in this House and many citizens perhaps originally read 1984 with some amusement and the sense that the writer was exaggerating. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that nobody who is at all aware of the world in which he now lives could be anything but a little scared of the fact that many of the dangers that were pointed out as developing — such as an invasion of privacy, for example — predicted for 1984 may well be arriving a great deal sooner than 1984.

So this whole business of communication and the technical ability for individuals or governments or groups of people to interfere with or to intrude upon private communication has to be one of the most serious dangers, perhaps, that this society faces, because it breeds mistrust and lack of confidence. In this whole realm of government business and the operation of government functions the citizens of this province or this country cannot confide to the degree that they perhaps would have done years ago, because of their awareness of the fact that one's conversation may no longer be private or that in dealing with governments or dealing with ministers or dealing with civil servants if the kind of power included in this bill were used unilaterally to function….

I'm not suggesting this would be done by this government or by this Minister, Mr. Speaker. Let me make it very plain that I'm not in any way suggesting that this Minister might abuse the power given to him. But we won't always have this Minister and we won't always have this government. Perhaps a few years ago no one would have suggested that President Nixon would abuse his powers to the degree that he did to interfere with private communications. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in this complex society where governments and government leaders are exposed to tremendous pressures, we have to try and be sure that the sacred nature of private conversations between two individuals must be protected.

I perhaps am placing too much emphasis on this one aspect of communication, but it certainly must be the one that I think worries all of us in the light of the degree to which these practices took place in the United States at the highest level of government. And yet the powers vested in this bill, Mr. Speaker, while they would, I'm sure, in many respects help this government to enhance communication and transportation, are simply far in excess of those which any responsible opposition could support.

The Minister mentioned the coming federal-provincial conference. I would have to agree with the former speaker for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that it has always been accepted under the terms of the BNA Act that the national government should have a great measure of control over communications. We hear many critical comments of the CBC, for example, and I understand that certain political employees sit with a stopwatch watching the 11 o'clock news at night to see if this political leader or the next political leader gets his appropriate pro rata number of seconds on CBC television. Mr. Speaker, I can't verify that that happens, but I'm told by people in the media that it happens. If this is the situation at the national level, I think we have to ask to what degree the danger would

[ Page 1087 ]

exist that a provincial group or a provincial body of authority might or might not respect the kinds of rules and regulations which are applied naturally so that there should be fair time and fair representation to those of differing political views.

The whole question of censoring is another matter which I think one must clearly identify in debating this bill. Section 6, for example, is titled delightfully "the ancillary powers of Minister" as though they were just sort of lesser powers. But the Minister can "acquire any business or commercial or industrial enterprise relating to transportation or communications," which presumably means the potential to control television, either publicly or privately. Now the Minister shakes his head, and I presume he means by that that the federal government will retain that measure of control which would prevent this.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Read the definition.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the definitions are very wide, Mr. Minister. I've read the definitions, and if you can find any aspect of communication or transportation that isn't included in that definition, then I'm not standing here in that case. The definition of the word "communications" — I won't bore the House by repeating all the words — covers any conceivable type of communication short of sign language. "Transportation, " likewise, includes every kind of method of moving individuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: That includes a wink.

MR. WALLACE: The Member says that it even includes a wink. I hope we never make winks illegal — that would really take a lot of fun out of life.

The whole question, Mr. Speaker, of giving government increasing authority and power over the means of communication means two things. With the tremendous impact of television, if government chooses to abuse the powers given to it, then of course the danger of television being used as a vehicle for political propaganda without allocating fair time to opposition has to be mentioned.

In any society where any government or any philosophy has attempted to gain power, it has always concentrated first of all in gaining power over the means of communication. Before the days of television and radio the attempt was to control the press. Again, I'm not saying that this government intends to do some of the things I've just suggested could be done under this bill, but the fact is that the power exists to do it. It can be done.

I hope the Minister won't get up, Mr. Speaker, with the usual blandishment and say, "Trust us." The fact is that when we're dealing with those important agencies of television and radio, with so much power to control the minds of people and to persuade people, and when we're giving the kinds of powers included in sections 4, 5 and 6 of this bill to the Minister, we really would not be responsible as opposition Members if we simply said, "Well, we see many dangers inherent in this bill but we know they're unreal because of the complete confidence and trust we have in the Minister." I'm sorry — we just can't take that stand.

It is hoped that the coming conference — according to press reports I've read — would be open to the public. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on that when he replies also. I think the public are showing a keen interest in the whole question of the control or the management by governments of communication, more so than transportation. It would seem that since the original authority to control television and licences and cablevision, and the like, rests with the federal government, I'm certainly glad that the Minister acknowledges that the next move is that these matters should at least be decided at federal-provincial conference, A quote from The Province on October 4 states: "The provinces have agreed on the need for a national communications policy, but insist on their right to hold substantial responsibilities. A national policy should reflect the needs, the interests, the aspirations and the priorities of the provinces." I would agree with that, but all we would say from this party is that while we agree with that general statement of philosophy, we don't think that that's what the philosophy implies in this bill.

This bill implies — in fact more than implies, it states — that the power of control over the communications in this province would far exceed what we think is a reasonable degree of authority within the hands of a provincial government. In addition to that, it is not just the government or a cabinet, but the power assigned to the Minister himself, and the ancillary powers given to the Minister in section 6. This is a bill with the most extensive ramifications.

I won't prolong the debate by talking about ferries, and highways, and B.C. Railroad, and B.C. Tel and all the various functions which the Minister himself touched upon in introducing the bill. But I would only recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, that because of this vast range of responsibility vested in one Minister, coupled with the tremendous impact, as I've mentioned, in the last decade or two of the various means of communication, this House would have to be doubly cautious that the power given under this bill or any other bill has to have, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey so often talks about, checks and balances. Beyond that that there could not or should not be a great degree of power vested in one man or one Minister.

[ Page 1088 ]

To what extent should power be given directly to the provinces in this very important field? That's the nub of the question. It goes without saying that of any area where people can have their opinions influenced, perhaps the most dangerous of all is the political arena, if there is to be preferred treatment to one segment or to one political party, and I don't think, from what I've heard, that at the national level there are too many people satisfied with the situation as it now exists. If it cannot be co-ordinated centrally through the national level, I express some considerable apprehension about the way such power could be abused provincially.

The Minister looks at me very sadly as though I should never let a thought like that go through my mind. I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, but the history of civilization shows that governments quite rightly wish to promote their philosophy and attempt to capture the minds of people and get them to agree with that particular philosophy. Just as long as every political leader and every political party has equal access to the public and equal opportunity and no disadvantage as compared to the government in power, then I see no danger in encouraging the widespread use of all means of communication, with our modern technology.

On the other hand, despite all our scientific advances, human beings are still human beings. The examples of history show that it is very, very dangerous when a political party or a Minister or a leader has in his hands the power to selectively transmit information to the public.

As I've said earlier on, there are many parts to the bill dealing with transportation which I haven't touched upon. But I think the outstanding serious danger in this bill lies in the potential abuse of power which this bill provides which would allow government selectively to control the dissemination of facts and information to the public, slanted in such a way as to favour the government. I think on that one issue alone I would oppose this bill — as indeed our party does.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, just one or two comments.

The hon. leader of the Conservative Party mentioned 1984. 1 don't think that anywhere in that book it mentioned whether it was going right or left; either side, either way it gets to, the end is bad. But I didn't want to leave the inference there that it only ends up that way if things go too far to the left. If they go too far to the right, what happens then?

There are probably only a few people on the floor who really know what goes on in the media — and we are talking about communications: one is the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), and I hope that I know something about it.

The idea that the media now is impartial is absolutely ridiculous. I worked in it; I know.

A member who works in the press gallery here every day for one of the local newspapers said to me….

MR. PHILLIPS: You're attacking the press.

HON. MR. LEA: No, I'm not attacking the reporters, I'm attacking the people who own it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: What's going on over there? (Laughter.) You're all upset.

One of the reporters….

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Is it okay to go on, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, order!

HON. MR. LEA: Thank you, thank you, thank you! (Laughter.)

One of the reporters said to me: "You know, in the paper that I work for they'll print almost anything that I write until I say something good about a labour union. That doesn't go. They won't report it. They won't put it in the paper."

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: I won't say what paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

HON. MR. LEA: Ah, no. Because I know what happens to reporters who make statements like that.

Now, to give you another idea of what happens in the media, when I was working for CBC, in my innocence I put Harry Rankin on the air.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Oh! What happened then? The producer said: "Don't put Harry Rankin on any more. He gets enough exposure as it is. To heck with him."

Those are the kinds of things that happen.

MR. McGEER: Didn't you think he got enough exposure?

HON. MR. LEA: It didn't matter to me. He was the person to interview on that particular subject.

Now, I'd like to put your minds at ease as to — let

[ Page 1089 ]

me see, what do they call it? They call it: "Is the CBC a haven for left-wing radicals?" Well, I'd like to put your minds at ease. There aren't any in there. I wish there were. But the CBC is probably one of the most reactionary, conservative programming methods in the whole country.

But did anyone over there read the Davey committee report on the media? Did you read that?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Yeah. Did you read it? Okay. Another one of those Liberal reports that they never did anything about.

The one area in that report that the committee showed great concern for was the concentration of ownership in the media. That was the one area of concern that they really stressed.

I can understand why most of the opposition members don't feel that that's a problem, because the concentration of ownership is really in the hands of the people whom they are in league with. The people who own the media in this country are the same people who pay the bills for most political parties — except one. And they expound the philosophy of most political parties in this country. So why not leave it alone? That's great.

Now I'm not saying by any means that this government intends to put our point of view through the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, I'll tell you, I'm just biased enough to wish we could. But do you know what would happen? We'd be voted right out of office. That's the balance and check you're asking for, and that's where it is. When you go to the polls, if you haven't been doing something correctly, they throw you out. You know that, don't you? Out you go!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where you're going — out!

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Now, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), said, "You know, it's kind of nice; we don't want to get away from equal time on the media for politicians."

Did you know that isn't the policy of the federal government on the CBC?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's all David Lewis.

HON. MR. LEA: Ah, no. When you get political free time on the CBC during an election or otherwise, the party that's in power gets more time than the opposition. Did you know that?

MR. WALLACE: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: You did know that? Is that fair, Mr. Member?

MR. WALLACE: It's better than not getting any at all, which could happen…. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: Well, with only two Members, that's about all you get anyway. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Things could always be worse.

HON. MR. LEA: And another thing, I think we should show concern in this province for what is going on in the media and in communications. Now I know of a Montreal firm which has bought up a number of newspapers in this province — Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, I believe, Nelson, Trail — concentration of the media.

You know, I spoke with the owner. He came up to me during the campaign and he said, "I'd just like to assure you, Mr. Lea," he said, "that we have no axe to grind. We're not going to take sides in this election."

So we talked on and we got to a little bit of his history, and I got a little concerned when he said he was the ex-executive assistant to Duplessis in Quebec. That to the Minister of Finance under Duplessis!

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

HON. MR. LEA: What's wrong with that? I'd like everybody to think that over. So, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.