[ Page 1157 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Shares purchased by government. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1157

Government manipulation of stock market. Mr. Morrison — 1157

Tickertape for Premier's office. Mr. Phillips — 1158

Two-price system for government pulp and paper enterprises. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Position of BCIT and WCB employees as public servants. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1159

Sales tax on books. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Energy crisis in B.C. Mr. Phillips — 1159

Threatened strike at Gorge Road Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Contracts for building ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1159

Seat on Toronto Stock Exchange. Mr. Phillips — 1160

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill 105). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1160

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1160

Mr. Fraser — 1161

Mr. Curtis — 1161

Ms. Brown — 1163

Mr. Gardom — 1164

Mr. Dent — 1165

Mr. Wallace — 1165

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1166

Mrs. Jordan — 1167

Mr. Nunweiler — 1168

Point of privilege

Correction of earlier statement re pension plan shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1169

Mr. Morrison — 1169

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 1169

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1170

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill 106). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1171

Mr. Gardom — 1172

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1172

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Bill 102). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1172

Mr. McClelland — 1172

Mr. Gardom — 1173

Mrs. Webster — 1173

Mr. Wallace — 1173

Ms. Brown — 1173

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1173

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill 103). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1174

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act (Bill 104). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1174

Petroleum Corporation Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 1174

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1176

Division on amendment to section 5 — 1177

On section 5.

Mr. Smith — 1177

Mr. Nunweiler — 1179

Mr. Richter — 1179

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1180

On section 10.

Mr. Smith — 1180

Amendment to section 17.

Mr. Gardom — 1180

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1180

Mr. Gardom — 1180

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1181

Report stage — 1181

The Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1181

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Chabot — 1181

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Mr. McClelland — 1182

Mr. Chabot — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Mr. McGeer — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Bennett — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1183

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 1183

On section 7.

Mr. McGeer — 1183

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Smith — 1184
Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1184
Mr. Williams — 1184
Mr. McGeer — 1184
Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1185

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1185
Mr. Smith — 1186
Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1187
Mr. Wallace — 1187
Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1188
Mr. McGeer — 1188
Mr. Phillips — 1189

An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act (Bill 109). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Amendments — 1191

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill 111). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

The Abandoned Refrigerator Act (Bill 112). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

SHARES PURCHASED
BY GOVERNMENT

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took as notice two questions related to the purchase by the government of shares. One of the questions relates to a question on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, but because of the nature of the question I think it's appropriate that I answer it as well as the first question asked yesterday and relate it all to question 118.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Before you proceed I would ask leave of the House for him to answer a question that's already on the order paper. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The first question asked yesterday: were shares purchased in Afton Mines, Westcoast Transmission or Kaiser Resources? I was quite sure yesterday at that time that the answer was no, but because of question 118 on the order paper I waited until today. The answer is definitely no. Nor are there any in existence from the previous administration.

Question 2: Have any shares been purchased in the B.C. Telephone company? The answer is yes. We now, through our pension plan, hold 36,675 shares in the B.C. Telephone Company and the value is $1,915,971.91. These have been purchased on the open market.

In relating this to question 118, Mr. Speaker — because these matters do affect the stock market — it is important the House know that in coming into office, a perusal indicated that outside of municipal bonds, Hydro bonds, and other Crown corporation bonds, the people of British Columbia were in possession of 42,100 Bank of B.C. common shares — the total is the current total; there have been some additions since come into office.

We also have 1,200 CPR shares — not enough for controlling interest (Laughter); Imperial Oil, 3,000; International Nickel, 450; United Accumulated, 36.

Our first acquisition of B.C. Telephone shares came this summer when we took over the Children's Aid Society of Victoria. At that time we were in receipt of part of their assets — some 300 shares. That, Mr. Speaker, is the absolute information.

I think it's most appropriate that the Member asked the question, and I'm sorry I didn't have the detail yesterday. But it was necessary to answer it in detail, and this is exactly where we stand now. I will table as a return all of the detailed information requested under question 118, with leave.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION
OF STOCK MARKET

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Finance.

Because the Revenue Act permits the government to buy shares in the open market, what precautions is the Minister of Finance using to prevent insiders from profiting from government manipulation of the marketplace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to avoid any inference of government manipulation of the market, the purchases we've made are made in the same practice that the preceding government made.

We went through existing houses, and at no time with those houses did we attempt to hide the fact that it was the Government of British Columbia making the purchases. It was information readily available. The existing houses were acting as our agent and they were not under instruction to keep the information a secret. As a matter of fact, it was on-the-street knowledge among the dealers up to this time.

MR. MORRISON: But at that point, Mr. Speaker, the government did not have the right, as Bill 74 allows them, to let the Minister of Finance buy and sell as he sees fit. May I add that the experience of trying to find that it was on the street and was common knowledge was extremely difficult. This certainly was not the case this last two or three days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the bill that was passed during the last session we had the authority. The first purchases were made in August of this year. We have no way of knowing how the houses share information on what other institutions buy — such as mutual funds and other investment groups. We have taken the standard open approach through the existing houses. Those houses acted as arm's-length agents for the government through the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question on the same particular matter, Mr. Speaker.

In today's issue of the Vancouver Province there's

[ Page 1158 ]

an article which indicates the government has halted the sale of a forest firm. There's a direct quote from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) which says: "While this company dominates the forest economy of the east Kootenay,"— and he's talking about Crestbrook — "this transfer would have given them the dominant role over the whole Kootenay Lake basin in the west Kootenay as well."

The government was of the opinion that so dominant an equity position in an important region of the province should be in Canadian hands. I ask the Minister of Finance: are the "Canadian hands" that are referred to by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) the hands of the Government of the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Citizens in the Province of British Columbia are Canadians, but "Canadian hands" includes anyone who is a Canadian citizen.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental then, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact today that the shares of Crestbrook have been depressed by $1 per share trading on the market today as compared to trading on the market yesterday. Does the Minister of Finance think that the announcement by his Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had in any way any effect on the trading of shares of Crestbrook?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under standing orders, or rather under the rules with regard to questions, you must not ask a question for the purpose of setting forward for argument matters that are argumentative — or in this case it would be theoretical or speculative.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker, that's not theoretical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with your ruling. On the contrary, it is absolutely important for the government to answer the question raised by the Member so that incorrect speculation does not go abroad in the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Well the speculation part of it has already taken place in the form of the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: If the House wants an answer it is entirely in the hands of the House. Is it agreed that the government answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but in an instance like this with a delicate speculative question, I think it is absolutely essential that the House answer; otherwise I'd be forced to answer in the corridor.

In my opinion the blocking of that sale has not affected Crestwood adversely because they were the purchasers….

AN HON. MEMBER: Crestbrook?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Crestbrook. They were not the sellers, they were the buyers. It has not affected them in any way. This is not an unusual….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's buy and sell.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People can interpret anything in any way they want. But in this instance it was a routine matter of government procedure, just as the previous administration was faced with decisions.

The Minister announced his decision, which was only proper, as he has a legal responsibility so to do. He announced his decision; what people do after that decision is not a matter of government policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the government is at present engaged in negotiating the purchase or considering the purchase of Kootenay Forest Products?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The answer is no.

TICKERTAPE FOR
PREMIER'S OFFICE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance is playing the stock market with the taxpayers' money, does he plan to have a tickertape installed in his office?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a good question. It's….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. Of course, that should not be dignified with an answer because it is ironical and ironical questions are not permitted, as the Member knows.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a perfectly legitimate question.

Interjections.

[ Page 1159 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR
GOVERNMENT PULP AND PAPER ENTERPRISES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether the provincial government, through the pulp and paper enterprises that it is involved in, has developed any two-price system or differential in prices for the domestic market as compared to export markets?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

POSITION OF BCIT AND WCB EMPLOYEES
AS PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received representations from BCIT and the Workmen's Compensation Board employees asking for clarification of their position as public servants?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yes, I've received letters from both groups and individuals working for those government areas of endeavour.

MR. D.A, ANDERSON: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not he will meet with representatives of these groups who are concerned about their position prior to the introduction of Bill 75 for further reading?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I don't intend to be meeting with them, but my staff are.

SALES TAX ON BOOKS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask in a lighter vein the Minister of Finance that whereas there is a sales tax on Plato but not on Playboy, is he considering removing the tax on books?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since I am familiar only with Plato I am not in a position to give a qualified answer at this time. (Laughter.)

ENERGY CRISIS IN B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the energy crisis in British Columbia, does the Minister of Finance plan to invest in the Quasar corporation, who have the hottest gas field in British Columbia in the Monkman Pass area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't accept touting in the House, nor can I answer that as it is speculative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Insider.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's touting in the House.

THREATENED STRIKE
AT GORGE ROAD HOSPITAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I wonder if I could ask the acting Minister of Health if there are contingency plans available to deal with the very real threat of a strike of hospital workers at the Gorge Road Hospital.

HON. MR. HALL: I will take that as notice for the Minister whom I expect to be in touch with me by phone at about 6 o'clock this evening.

CONTRACTS FOR BUILDING FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker, if I can get his attention.

I wonder whether he could reply at this time whether or not he will be tabling in this House documents dealing with the contracts for the ferries and the specifications given to the Canadian as well as the United States firms prior to the rising of the House some time next week.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I think you asked that question yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I asked that question and the answer I received was that you were still considering the matter. My question now is whether or not you will consider the matter and come to some conclusion some time in the future prior to the House rising.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked if I would consider the matter and the answer is yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the second question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm considering them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I take this as a commitment that you will make a decision on tabling those documents prior…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll consider it.

[ Page 1160 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the Hon. Member of page 147, Beauchesne, item (c). The Hon. Member knows the section quite well; he's been in the House of Commons.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely by heart, Mr. Speaker. The question I'm asking, however, is whether or not we are going to get a reply to this question that is under consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: And that is item (c), page 147 where it says that you can't expect one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I realize that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said, yes, the matter is under consideration.

SEAT ON TORONTO
STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. Now the Minister of Finance is playing the stock market with the taxpayers' money, does he plan to buy a seat on the Toronto Stock Exchange?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Vancouver?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much are they?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that Member wants information that I'm not even prepared to give him in the corridor. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Hospital Act.

Bill 105 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): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 96, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MUNICIPAL ACT

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): In moving second reading of the bill, I would like to mention a few of the major changes. Possibly we could deal more specifically with the bill when we get into committee stage.

I think the first item is the question of who can vote at municipal elections and on referendums and such. The change has been that now the vote is given to the resident in the area the property qualifications are no longer valid, and only those who are residents can vote. The purpose of this is of course basically to give the residents the vote, not only in municipal elections but also in regard to the money bylaws and so on.

It is hoped that in agreement with and cooperation with my colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), eventually there will be a common voters' list for both provincial and municipal elections.

You will note that there are a number of sections in the bill which deal with changing the mechanics and the requirements of the voting procedures — and these changes are picked directly and quoted directly from the Provincial Elections Act — to bring these more closely into line.

There is a change on the question of amalgamations. At the present time there are three or four sections dealing with amalgamations, and the bill turns those into one section which gives a vote on an overall basis, quite similar to one of the sections already there. The other sections dealing with amalgamations no longer will be in force. The votes on amalgamation will be over 50 per cent for passage. Likewise, the votes on other matters in the municipalities will be changed from 60 per cent to 50 per cent on money bylaws and other referendums.

The question of who may run for office: anyone may run for office in any municipality whether that person resides in the municipality or not. This is not correct in areas where there is already provision in letters patent, as in Kamloops and Kelowna. The letters patent in those areas dictate that the person running for office must be a resident of a certain locality or certain ward. So it doesn't apply in those particular cases that have their procedures outlined in letters patent. In other ones that do not, anyone from any municipality, whether he is resident or not, may run in another municipality for elective office.

It allows the municipalities to tax on a regional hospital district basis within the municipality. At the present time, this is not provided. This will increase the tax assessments for regional districts and for

[ Page 1161 ]

municipalities within the municipality.

I have already mentioned the change of the votes from 60 per cent to over 50 per cent. There are some provisions for further investments in credit unions.

There is a question which has caused some concern: the notice of rezonings to residents. Changes were made last year in the spring session. It will be changed so that only notices need go directly to the occupants or residents of the areas, whether they are the owners or not. In other words, the owners will not necessarily get direct notice. They will receive notice through the advertisements in the papers. The municipalities will only be required to notify the residents in the areas involved.

I think those are the major changes. There are a number of other housekeeping provisions which I think might well be better dealt with in committee, Mr. Speaker.

I might say that I have spent much more time on that side of the House than on this side of the House, and I realize the problems faced by the opposition in getting a great number of bills toward the end of the session. I wanted to assist them in being able to review the Municipal Act. If you take your pencil and paper out, I will give you a quick method of looking at it.

If you deal with sections 1 to 32, I think you might class that as iron-heeled legislation. From 33 to 64 you class that as blank-cheque legislation, and from 65 to 96 it's awesome power. (Laughter.)

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I enjoyed the remarks of the Hon. Minister in closing. As far as the opposition is concerned, we haven't too much to say about this. We are in favour of these amendments, the great majority of them. We agree with the Minister that we can talk about them in the committee stage, the ones that we don't like. The majority of them are pretty good.

Referring to the voting and the structure of who can vote now, that's a good approach and probably should have come in long before now. The fact of reducing the percentage from 60 to 50 per cent is also good; it means that a simple majority is now all that is required. I might say that the cost of preparation of the voters list is going to be an increased load on the municipalities. I would hope that the government would consider this when they are looking in the budget for the next fiscal year because it will probably cost the municipalities of the province about $1 million to prepare the voters list that is required to be done by June, 1974. I don't think that they should carry this load, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister well knows, there are a lot of things in here, but there isn't any extra money that the municipalities have been asking the Minister for. I would just like to comment here that I am not so sure that the municipalities of this province are going about getting more funds in the proper way by forever asking for sharing of revenues of the provincial government — such as the gas tax and other forms of revenue. I think they should be taking the approach, perhaps, of reducing the liabilities that the provincial government has on them, which are a great cost to them. I refer to the cost of policing and to the cost of welfare.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has done enough on this to convince his colleagues, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), of what a financial load these two things are. In my opinion, they should be totally the responsibility of the province. It is costing them millions of dollars to assume these functions. I don't think they should be financially responsible for either one of them. Rather than try to get increased revenue, I think they should be working on an approach toward getting reduced the costs that are hung on them by the province. Of course, in that way they will be better off financially.

There is a comment or two I would like to make, back on the amendments here, Mr. Speaker. There is a sign in these amendments that regional government is going to be strengthened at the cost of the organized municipalities. I hope that this is not the case because that wasn't really the concept of regional government when it was first brought in in this Legislature. I wasn't here, but I believe it was brought in in 1965. I've heard it discussed out on the hustings. It was brought in by a unanimous vote of this Legislature. There was no opposition at all to the regionalization at that time. As I say, I hope that these amendments don't get the regional districts in the position that they are dictating to the real base municipalities in their area.

The boundary extensions and amalgamations are always a vexing problem to municipalities. This now really gives an overall vote, as I understand it, in the municipality as well as the annexed area. I hope it resolves the problems that have always been raised in these vexing matters. I don't think in here, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be any sign of any more of the Kamloops- or Kelowna-type forced amalgamations. I am sure that the Minister realizes the problems that were created. I don't think we will see any more of them.

We will certainly go along with this at second reading and have more to say at the third reading in the committee stage on the individual amendments.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I think that committee stage of reading Bill 96 will perhaps be more productive in terms of exchanging points of view between various Members of the opposition and the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 1162 ]

I looked through the bill when it was introduced and reacted pretty positively to it as far as I could on the basis of first reading. I was really shaken, however, when the mayor of Victoria also endorsed it. I hurried back and read it again to make sure that there was not something there which I had missed on the first run through.

I think that the question of one person, one vote is rather overdue in British Columbia. I know that there are a number of business people in the province who will express concern about this. Some have expressed that concern already. I am sure the Minister has received some correspondence since the bill was introduced.

There is a feeling of being disenfranchised on the part of business individuals who have taken the franchise very seriously and have exercised it on a regular basis. I think it would be wrong to make sweeping generalizations, but I have the feeling that in many communities the business person has not taken full advantage of the franchise which has been available to him or her for many, many years in this province. Now that it is being removed, they will obviously make some pretty strong statements with respect to the removal.

It seems to me that if there's one person, one vote at the federal level, one person, one vote provincially, then the same should apply in municipal or regional district voting.

I am a little concerned about the business tenant. I really don't have any suggestions, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister at this point. Again, this may come out when we get into committee; other speakers may have some ideas. The small business man who is a tenant in a municipality in which he does not reside perhaps is losing some rights here. Indeed, the same could be said of the concerned small business person, as an example, who lives in Oak Bay or Esquimalt or Saanich but operates some sort of premises in downtown Victoria. I'm not entirely comfortable about that, but there may be some way to assist those people in subsequent amendments.

The question of cost with respect to the enumeration which is instructed by the bill is something which I trust the Minister and the government will direct himself and itself to very, very seriously. In a radio broadcast in which we participated just a short while ago, the Minister said — in a light-hearted way, he indicated later — that municipalities are wealthy. Well, he served on a municipal council, he's the Minister responsible for local government in British Columbia, and he knows that that is not the case. He knows that in the crunch every spring at budget time it's the sidewalk or the road or the drainage improvement or the essential items which have to be cut to hold the mill rate down. I hope he won't give us the usual pat answer with respect to reserves — the operating capital for municipalities put aside a little bit at a time every year.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government should realize that in the sections of this Act calling for door-to-door enumeration or almost every member visitation, as some might call it, there's going to be a fair expense involved.

I've asked for a couple of examples and was given one in this general area. We're looking at perhaps $15,000 to carry out the enumeration which is specified in the bill. That's only in the field; that's just getting the people out to make sure they have canvassed every resident in every section of the municipality. It would take, in this example, 30 enumerators about six weeks to do the job, providing they're really well trained and well prepared before they move out into the field. They could be paid on a variety of bases: salary plus incentive, so many cents for a new name, so many cents (a little lower figure) for confirmation. But the $15,000 does not include the associated clerical expense once that information is brought back to the municipal hall.

I think it's a very serious lack in this fairly comprehensive change to the Municipal Act that there is not some means whereby the provincial government, which we are told is doing very well financially thank you, would share in that cost, with the municipalities carrying out the direction of the Minister and the provincial government.

For quite some time I have felt very strongly about the move towards a computerized voters list, ideally for all three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. I'm pleased to hear the Minister's comments with respect to a common voters list between the provincial and municipal voter. Perhaps when the opportunity presents itself, he could investigate the possibility of discussing this at the federal level as well.

Surely in these days of extremely sophisticated EDP systems we could have an effective and efficient data-processed voters list. You could break out for a municipal election those names, for a provincial election you could break out those names, and the same, of course, at the federal level — this notwithstanding the variations in boundaries between a provincial electoral area and a municipality or a regional district electoral area. It can be done and I would hope the Minister and the Provincial Secretary would address themselves to that possibility at the earliest opportunity.

I also wonder, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, with the change in the status of voters from owner-electors to electors, what is going to happen with respect to voting dealing with school referenda matters. This, I assume, would involve a change in the Public Schools Act. Is there to be companion legislation? The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) nods. There is to be companion legislation? Might we expect that

[ Page 1163 ]

at this session, Mr. Speaker? I wasn't sure if that's a nod. It is a nod. Very well, it's indicated then that there will be companion legislation with respect to voting which deals with schools or the operation of schools.

Under the section noted "awesome powers" by the Minister, or was it "blank cheque" — I'm not sure which — I would just like to make one final observation with respect to amalgamations. It was interesting to note the decision handed down by the electorate in Vancouver city just a few days ago.

I feel very strongly that there is a population unit in local government beyond which the individual citizen can very easily lose touch with his municipally-elected representatives, or regional district representatives in the case of regional district government. I'm not sure what the exact figure is. Many people more qualified than I am to comment on this have written papers and presented material over the years throughout Canada and the United States dealing with the ideal local government size.

I subscribe and identify my subscription to the view that bigger is not necessarily better. Whatever it is — 50,000 persons, 75,000, 100,000, 125,000 — it is essential for the people in this province to be able to reach their mayor or their alderman fairly easily on a matter which might be as simple as a drainage ditch or a dangerous intersection or a sidewalk which is in need of repair as well as the larger and more important issues.

I think it would be extremely unfortunate if someone in the Department of Municipal Affairs, or the Minister himself, moved towards establishing local government units which were in the order of 150,000, 200,000, 250,000 persons. It simply changes the style of local government and we would lose a great deal, a great deal indeed, if an individual citizen with an individual problem could not pick up the phone and have reasonable assurance of getting in touch with a member of council and getting the call returned or having the letter answered, or whatever it might be, within a couple of days.

I know examples have been cited in rebuttal to this argument, that Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto don't seem to have the problem. But you don't reach the mayor in those cities if you are Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Average Citizen. You don't get near the mayor. You are lucky, in fact, to get near the alderman. You will hear from an assistant or a senior secretary, or you will be referred from one department to another.

While I can appreciate the need for the extension of boundaries in certain areas, the amalgamation of certain other areas, I would most strenuously urge the Minister to avoid this North American trend to bigness in local government.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, very briefly I'd like to speak in support of this bill, specifically to say that the only fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned is that so many of the benefits accruing to the municipalities under this bill will not affect Vancouver because we operate under the Vancouver Charter. I am supporting this bill in the real hope that when the Minister gets around to looking at the Vancouver Charter, he will incorporate in the charter some of the very good things that he's doing in this bill.

I'm particularly pleased with the acceptance of the concept of one person, one vote. I realize that it's going to be almost impossible to ensure that everyone gets on the voters list.

Coming from a riding which has so many tenants living in it, where so many of the members are tenants, so many of the population do not own their homes but are renters, I would like to suggest that probably one way of ensuring that they don't fall in between enumerations and find themselves off the voters list when an election is due is to consider making it automatic for the landlord or the apartment owner, whoever it is, to register their tenant on the list as soon as the tenant moves into a home. This way, even with the door-to-door enumeration which takes place and often misses so many people because they're not at home, or they're out of the city or whatever, they still would be covered.

I'm particularly pleased with the decision to have a joint voters list, provincial and municipal, and would like to suggest that at the same time we look at the business of polling stations. One of the problems we have in the city, Mr. Speaker, is that if you have three different elections you tend to vote in three different places. It really can be quite confusing, especially for those people who don't take very good care to save their polling cards.

Really, I'm not quite sure why it's not possible to have the same polling station for provincial elections as you have for civic elections, especially in those instances where the polling stations are in government buildings or churches or community centres, or places like that. I realize that in some instances the polling stations are in basement suites and in private homes, and this may not be possible. But I certainly would like to urge the Minister very strongly to look at the whole business of making the polling station boundaries and the polling stations pretty much the same for all elections.

I'm also pleased with the decision to eliminate the corporate vote and the absentee vote. This is one recommendation that I would specifically like to speak for on behalf of the Vancouver Charter when the Minister gets around to changing it.

Also sections 206 and 207 — the ones dealing with funding. The municipal assessment base, I think, would be much more beneficial to us in Vancouver than the one which we presently enjoy.

[ Page 1164 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the decision to make money bylaws and referenda decided on a 50 per cent vote is one which has my complete support, also something which I would like to see incorporated in the Vancouver Charter. Thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the greatest single problem municipalities are facing today is something that's unfortunately not covered in this bill, and that's shortage of money.

We note that in 1970 the B.C. government estimate of budget was $1,165 million and this spring the Premier came in with an estimate of revenue of $1,722 million. If I recall correctly, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), in his once again more correct Liberal budget, came in with estimated revenues of $1,850 million. I would say as we said before, that he's far closer to the truth than the Premier was in his estimates.

But we noticed that in the spring the government raised the per capita grant to the municipalities $2 — from $30 to $32 — and it's always been my suggestion that the fairest thing to do with the municipalities is put them on a similar basis of increase-decrease as is facing the provincial coffers. Utilizing those figures we would see the municipalities having a 48 per cent increase as opposed to a 6.65 per cent increase in per capita grants and which would have given them for the year 1973 a per capita grant of $48 as opposed to a per capita grant of $32.

The former administration, unfortunately, seemed to treat the municipalities as foundlings of the provincial government. And it is indeed regretful to me that the current administration has seen fit to follow the same course.

We've never yet had a single word from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), whose silence has indeed been deafening, as to why this government is not tying municipal per capita revenues into provincial revenues and permitting the municipalities to have the necessary funds to do that which they have to do.

I think the statistics that the Minister's department could afford him…and it would be delightful if he would afford them to the House so all of the Members of the House could have them at their fingertips as well as the people in the province. I think the figures that his department would afford him would be that the costs of running a municipality have greatly increased, as opposed to the costs of running the provincial government. Yet the return to the municipalities has been miserly to say the least; they've always had to come cap-in-hand; they're still in the position of having to come cap-in-hand to this government for assistance.

I'd also wish that we had found within the legislation something that would have been indicating a new direction, a new idea — something that the government would say they're prepared to break some ground with — and that was that income tax relief could be provided for individual purchases of municipal bonds to the extent that the interest income they would receive would come into their hands tax free. This, of course, we all appreciate would have to be worked in conjunction with the federal government, but there's no reason why B.C. couldn't take the initiative and indeed say itself that it would be prepared to waive its proportion of income tax on that particular kind of interest income. This is the procedure that's been followed to a great extent in the United States of America, and obviously with a great deal of success.

There is an item in the bill that does give me a considerable amount of concern: that is the deletion of the corporate vote. I indeed agree with the rather obvious facts that have been before all of us over the past five or six years, that in some instances the corporate vote was abused. I'm not tolerating that for one second. But we've got to remember that corporations are just a group of people in common concert and it's their intention to carry on a business or vocation for their mutual gain and benefit. As long as they're lawful in their non-polluting and taxpaying vocation, they certainly should be entitled to have representation.

I gather this to be my interpretation of the Act and if I'm wrong I hope the Minister would correct me, but if I am correct, I do think it's disgraceful that we can find a situation of a corporation within a municipality carrying on business within a municipality, owning land, paying all of the necessary municipal taxes, and it not being entitled to have a single solitary vote. That of course is quite possible wherein the employees or the management of the corporation are the owners of the corporation. It could be a corporation of two or three shareholders — or even one, under the Attorney General's new Companies Act, and you have a sole corporation. So the Attorney General could be incorporated, his corporation be within the City of Vancouver, be a taxpayer; he would live outside of the city and he would not be entitled to have any kind of a vote in city administration. Perhaps I'm not really being too wise in using the city as an example, because I appreciate, as do the other Members, that it is affected by the city charter, but perhaps substitute for Vancouver the words "New Westminster."

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I'm a poor example too, I've just got one vote.

MR. GARDOM: You're the richest example I know, Mr. Attorney General. (Laughter.) I'm not suggesting a duplicity of vote at all, and it's too bad the Attorney General construed it that way. I hope that

[ Page 1165 ]

I'm making myself clear, at least to the Minister. If I'm not, I apologize for that fact.

I'm not suggesting a double vote; I'm suggesting that if there is a corporation within a municipality, it is taxpaying, it's carrying on its vocation, it should be entitled to have representation because otherwise we're right back to the general situation over which wars have been fought for centuries and centuries — taxation without representation. I'd like to hear the Minister's comments on these remarks when he stands up to close the debate in his usual capable manner.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I stand in support of this bill. I think it's long overdue. Our only regret is that it wasn't introduced in time for the municipal elections this fall.

One point I would make, though, and that is I would agree partially with the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in regard to an improved financial formula for aiding municipalities.

I draw the attention of the House particularly to the plight of Terrace. Terrace finds itself a bedroom community providing living accommodation for many of the people who work in Kitimat, which has a very good assessment base and is able to afford its services much more than Terrace can. Yet Terrace is obliged to provide services for many of the people that work at Alcan without that same tax base. This is grossly unfair to the district of Terrace, and I would hope that in the not too far distant future there will be some measures to rectify that kind of situation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) makes plain, we will support this bill. Many of the suggestions are overdue, such as allowing tenants to vote on money bylaws, and so on.

But my colleague from Saanich said that he was uncomfortable about a certain aspect of the bill. I'm a great deal more concerned than being just uncomfortable. I plainly oppose it.

I'm talking about the small businessman who has his business in Victoria, let us say, and lives in Oak Bay. That businessman, Mr. Speaker, should have some say in who represents him in terms of spending taxpayers' money which he as a taxpayer operating a business, let us say, pays in the city. He should have some say in how he is represented in the taxing of his business.

This idea that a corporation is some godless, faceless, amorphous mass that does not involve people and money has really been overplayed, I would suggest, in this bill. The fact is that this rather simplistic, one man, one vote statement is certainly true at the federal and provincial level. But at the municipal level, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about property which a person owns and on which he or she pays taxes, and that these taxes are decided by the deliberation of elected individuals.

I think that while one vote, one person at the federal and provincial level makes no sense at all to disenfranchise a person — particularly the smaller business person who has a small enough and a narrow enough base of influence already — when, in fact, he or she is paying taxes on that business which is operated within a municipality other than the one where they live.

If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, there's the very obvious inconsistency which the Minister has already admitted — I believe publicly — that when it comes to the matter of local improvement bylaws, the corporation or the small businessman living outside the municipality will have a vote. Maybe the Minister would like to comment on that.

We have an example in Victoria right now where there are proposals to develop a mall on Government Street. Technically and literally, if we follow the provisions of these amendments, there are no residents in that area of any number at all; but there are a whole group of businessmen whose livelihood and income and welfare, in the business sense, are at stake by whatever changes might be made in creating that mall.

Surely you're not going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only people who would vote on that would be the residents and not the businessmen — who probably outnumber the residents, but who happen to live in another municipality. I suggest that if the conclusion of government is that the businesses or the business owners in these cases of local improvement bylaws are to have a vote there, then I think that is quite inconsistent with them not being able to vote on other municipal matters which affect the taxes they will be contributing to the municipality.

As I said earlier, I like the bill generally. Most of the points we'll cover in committee are progressive steps. We'll certainly support it. But I think the impression of the light-hearted way in which the Minister has just suddenly taken away the right of businessmen to vote in the municipality where their business is located and where, in fact, they are paying very substantial taxes, I think, is totally unfair. I can't understand the reasoning behind this.

The Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) alluded to abuses which had been perpetrated by corporations in the past. I have to confess that I'm not aware of what these abuses were or how frequent they were. But I do know, from talking to businessmen in this community and listening to their attitudes and looking at the comments of the aldermen in the City of Victoria — I don't think my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) should be too concerned to find that every now and again he can

[ Page 1166 ]

agree with Mayor Pollen — that the kind of comments that are forthcoming about a vendetta against the businessmen who pay their business tax in Victoria and live in one of the other municipalities are a disruptive thing. Surely the Minister should be trying to strengthen relationships between his department and the elected municipal officials.

One of the comments that I don't completely agree with mentions that this is "smacking of the development of class warfare." I don't know whether this amendment that the Minister's bringing in in this Act does represent some kind of attack on a certain class of people who happen to own property.

As I said earlier, the one vote, one man theory is all very correct and reasonable on provincial and federal levels, but where the sole question of the municipal vote is concerned, it involves a person paying taxes for services to property which he owns in a certain place in the province.

I just can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why this attitude should be taken. If there is some reason that has not been discussed in this House or if the Minister has some information or examples of abuses which we should know about, I would like to know what the abuses are, and I would like to know, more particularly, if he would reconsider this amendment because to me it seems quite unjust. It contradicts a basic concept — at least I think it's a basic concept in our society — that if you're contributing taxation which is raised and distributed by elected officials, surely to goodness the people putting up the tax money should have some say in choosing these elected officials. It's just that simple.

While I like the rest of the bill and have few reservations about the other clauses, I'm sorry that I have to hammer away at this with a great deal of feeling because I think it is just unfair and unjust that people who happen to pay taxes in one municipality and live in another, should have no say whatever in electing the people who will have a great deal to do with the raising and distribution of that tax money. I do hope the Minister will reconsider.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill that we have today is good in principle in that we have an attempt to get tenants to vote and avoid the situation which has occurred in the past whereby tenants, unless they take particularly careful steps, are not on any voters list and, of course, are barred from money bylaws.

However, in trying to achieve that laudable objective, we are at the same time — as has been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in discussions of the businessmen in Victoria — going a long way to denying the right of people to have their voices heard prior to being taxed, a right that goes right back to well before the American Revolution. The rebellion of the 13 colonies, as perhaps we should call it, was based on this principle; it was a major factor — the right of representation when they were taxed.

Now I'm not suggesting that the businessmen of Victoria will rise up in righteous anger over this; there aren't that many people concerned. There are only, I believe, about 250. But the concept is there. I trust that the Minister will be bringing forth amendments to take care of this when the bill is before us at the committee stage.

Certainly it's a laudable objective to have the tenants voting. I'm a tenant myself in the City of Victoria, I own no property in this community, and I appreciate that this right will not just be the right of my landlord on all the money bylaws and things of that nature. But the fact is that we should not wipe out one class of citizens who are voters in our efforts to get another class in.

The real problem is not a question of who's on the list, but how few of them vote. In Vancouver less than 25 per cent of the people who are eligible to vote voted. That's the problem, not whether 250 people perhaps should be knocked off the list.

The difficulty that I see here is that we've set up a system, a bill here, with a system incorporated into it which is very cumbersome. In the case of hard-fought decisions by a city council — and I'm thinking again specifically of my own community of Victoria — there can be a large number of people who want to overturn a decision, making use of the changes we're bringing in today with respect to notice and notification of every elector, every tenant, and, thus, somehow or another thwarting the wishes of their duly elected council.

If there's any real problem in my mind it's the fact that we have very few people voting. With this legislation we're going to make it easier for people to overturn, or at least attack, civic bylaws on the grounds that not every tenant was notified.

We know that, on the average, the normal North American moves every three years. In this area with three surrounding municipalities and a number of districts as well, it's quite likely they'll move in or out of the Victoria city area. The difficulty of keeping the lists as are envisaged by this legislation is going to be very, very great.

The fact is that the Municipal Officers' Association — the people who are actually the nuts-and-bolts operators at the level of keeping these lists and making sure that the correct notification is sent out — have objected somewhat strongly to this type of legislation because they know the practical difficulties. While this is not necessarily the principle of the bill, I think it's pretty much a major part of it.

When you change things so radically perhaps you are setting up a system which will become — and in the opinion of many of these municipal officers will certainly become — unworkable.

[ Page 1167 ]

While we in this party can accept the principle of putting tenants on the electoral rolls, and having them as electors instead of just the owner-electors, I trust that the Minister will be sympathetic when we bring forward amendments. In fact, perhaps he would like to bring forward some amendments himself to take care of the difficulties that this type of legislation, which is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water, is engendering. We will be bringing these forward in second reading.

We appreciate the concept he is bringing forward, but we would urge the Minister to go back and before we get to the committee stage start considering amendments — in particular amendments along the line of the Municipal Officers' Association criticisms — so that this legislation can at least be made workable. This, as I mentioned earlier, is of particular importance in the capital city which, at the present time, has great fears that this legislation will make it virtually impossible for them to notify people in accordance with the Act, and therefore make it virtually impossible for them to be sure that their bylaws will not be challenged on the grounds that there has been a lack of notification to some or other tenant.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't want to repeat, really, what the other Members have said, but there are two or three points that I do want to touch on because I think in representing a non-metropolitan riding I can reflect some of their views that haven't yet been stated.

The first one, of course, is the problem in extending the franchise to one group of voters — the tenants — and then in turn disenfranchising another group of voters. I must agree in principle and philosophy that I think this is wrong. I recognize that the Minister claims that he is trying to overcome some abuses. I must join with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in suggesting that we would like to have evidence of these abuses.

There is some risk in every avenue. There is the risk in terms of extending the vote to all tenants that you are extending to some, and I am sure very few, irresponsible tenants a franchise that they might well abuse. It might well be, conversely, that the odd company vote was abused.

When one looks at the system, and I believe I have it correctly, a company, no matter how big, only had one vote, just as one person, no matter how small, has one vote. In a small community — and I would like to liken the major community in the area that I have the honour to represent, Vernon — there are many people who live in Lumby but have their business in Vernon. In fact, one of them serves on the Vernon council. This person will be eligible to run for council but not eligible to vote on a money bylaw, yet he is eligible to pay his taxes and contribute to the community. This seems most inconsistent.

It can happen the other way around. In Vernon at this time we have a mayor who has a business in the community, who remarried and now lives out of the community. So he will be, under this legislation, in the most interesting position of being mayor of the community, living outside of the community, having a business in the community, being able to run the community but not able to vote in the community, as I understand it.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a good thing. You might have lost, Mr. Attorney General. In trying to cure a minor problem, you are creating an anomaly. I wonder, when the Minister considers this, if he wouldn't think in terms of perhaps, as there is now, one vote for one company, with the voting person for that company also owning a home in that town and having that vote, but limiting the representation to your home property and one company. I wonder if this, in fact, might help the situation.

In speaking to this, as I say, I must reiterate that the principle of disenfranchising a legitimate taxpayer, and hundreds and thousands of average taxpayers in British Columbia on the terms so far given, cannot be accepted in itself.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) mentioned her great joy at the enfranchising of renters, and I share this. I think this is a good thing, but I would ask the Minister: in relation to this what precautions have you built in or do you intend to build in to keep this from being a very different type of effect in the rural areas?

I was thinking in terms of a very small municipality or community which is adjacent to a sudden building programme of either one or two industries where there is a tremendous influx of people into mobile home parks that are suddenly created. They are part of that community, they may live there for one or two or three years, but essentially they are renters and they are transient renters. Their motives may be very, very good in terms of wanting to have recreational facilities and street lighting and this sort of thing for the community. But what happens when they move on and this community reverts back to its regular level of economic activity?

There have been cases, certainly, in British Columbia where as many as 300 families have moved into very small communities. Spillimacheen and Armstrong are examples. When Crown Zellerbach built in there two or three years ago, there was a tremendous influx of transient families who were there for a period of one or two years. Had they been voting, there was the possibility that the whole financial basis of the community could have been

[ Page 1168 ]

stretched beyond its ability to endure.

I wonder if the Minister would comment on this as to what kind of built-in protections he has in mind to see that this doesn't happen.

The allowing of municipalities to go into off-street parking, I think, created some interesting questions. The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) stated that in allowing such extensions as he has in the Act there has been nothing done to meet the financial needs of municipalities under the increasingly great strains that they are facing. If they are to go into the business of off-street parking in terms of allowing a public vote, who is going to pay for that?

I agree that off-street parking has to be considered very strongly right now by municipalities but there has to be a change in attitude, really, to even think in terms of how much traffic there should be in the downtown area. The communities should be thinking in terms of some form of transportation for their downtown areas and they shouldn't be building a lot of parking areas, in my view, to encourage people to bring their cars downtown.

The government should be offering assistance in terms of transportation for smaller communities so that they can plan these core areas much more on a pedestrian basis. We all abhor the car, and yet all around British Columbia…. In our own community of Vernon, they are talking about millions to put the parking down underneath the community. As much as I like the upper section, I think that this whole trend of thinking is wrong. A community like Vernon, Kelowna, Nelson or Revelstoke, I believe, with encouragement and financial assistance from the government, should be thinking in terms of community transportation, and making it just as uncomfortable as possible to park downtown. This will help all of us I think in terms of communal travelling together or community transportation.

As the bill stands, the municipalities are going into the parking business. The reason that there aren't off street parkades in small communities is because they are financially unsound investments; they are not economic. Who is to pay for this off-street parking? Is it going to be a vote by transient people, by renters in the community that will influence it? Will you, by disenfranchising the business people in the community, who must in the minds of most councils really pay for that off-street parking, in fact force upon them a cost which their business may not well be able to withstand in a small community?

In speaking to this, I think you have to relate it in terms of disenfranchisement of a group of people who must bear the cost of another programme, as it appears in this bill, which will be forced upon them.

The second thing is that I am disappointed that there is nothing in this Act that would encourage a change of thinking on the part of municipalities to think in terms of municipal transportation, either private or municipally owned, in terms of convenient transportation within the community downtown core itself, such as they have at Expo. Everybody loves to go back to the old Expo grounds and get on one of the little open trains to ride around the grounds. Why can't we encourage this type of fun and very practical transportation within our small communities?

The main problem in parking in smaller communities is habit, and by nature we are becoming a lazy society. The other is the very real problem of people carrying their groceries and packages to their own form of transportation. If we had this mini-type of fun transportation, within small communities encouraged by the government, I think we would really then be on the right track to solving some of the planning problems in communities and the parking problem in British Columbia, as well as our pollution problem.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I would just like to say a word or two about this legislation. I would like to contribute my support towards it.

One interesting feature in here is the expansion of the municipal responsibility for zoning where a municipal council can prevent any developer from stripping trees off their building sites. I can recall in many instances where a developer will go in and clean off the whole area, whether it's 200 or 300 lots, and not care about the trees after people get established. This section of this Act will certainly give the municipalities an opportunity to preserve some of the natural beauty of an area and will give a more homey atmosphere to future residents in any residential community.

I would also like to give my support to the concept of one man, one vote. I've heard so many people talk about this in the past over the years, but it is the first time we are really witnessing some action on it. I think it is high time we did something about it, and here is the opportunity. We are all agreeable that trees don't vote, cars don't vote, buildings don't vote, so we have to remember once and for all that it is people who vote. When I see one person walking into a polling booth who gets one ballot and the person behind him gets 14 ballots because he has interests in 14 different corporations, it makes you wonder why we can't get to the concept of one man, one vote.

There is another discriminatory feature that is going to be resolved here by giving municipalities and the Municipal Finance Authority the opportunity to do their banking with credit unions as well as with banks. It's only fair that they have the same opportunity to participate in a community. Credit unions have very deep roots in their community and they are community-oriented, so I think it is a credit to the Minister that he is giving the credit unions the

[ Page 1169 ]

opportunity to participate in a community by municipal banking as well.

The industrial tax base is something that is lacking in some municipalities even though there is lots of industry. You see, for example, a large pulp mill or two beside a municipality and not inside it. Employees from the pulp mill who are working have their jobs in the industry, but the municipality is serving as bedrooms for that industry. I think it is only fair that the industry pay its full municipal tax share for that community. The boundary expansion features in this bill will contribute towards that.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to give my support to this bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of privilege, I ask leave to correct a statement I made earlier in the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House, in replying to a question of the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), I announced that the shares the government had in the pension plans included: Bank of B.C. shares, 42,100; CPR, 1,200; Imperial Oil, 3,000; International Nickel, 450; and United Accumulative, 36.

I left the impression that CPR, Imperial Oil, and the International Nickel shares were, in fact, held by the previous administration. That was incorrect. I corrected it with the press and I tried to reach all the Members individually until this opportunity to speak.

In fact, the first 300 shares of B.C. Tel we received were under the ownership of the Family and Children's Service who also held the CPR, Imperial Oil, and the International Nickel shares. The only shares we inherited from the previous administration were the Bank of B.C. shares.

I am sorry for the interpretation that has been unfortunately taken from this, but it was my error, Mr. Speaker, and I'm rising to tell the House of that error.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Well, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am pleased the Premier has corrected this error, which was very unfortunate, particularly because in replying to my question he answered someone else's question. He actually answered Mr. McGeer's question which was a completely different matter. I am happy this is being clarified and I am still concerned as to what is happening on the market. I am a great deal happier that this is settled at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the debate on Bill 96.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We are discussing that rather than the government investment portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), in introducing this bill for second reading, said that the first 32 sections were "iron-heel" legislation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: …and the next 32 were "blank-cheque" legislation and the last 32 were "awesome-power" legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping powers.

MR. McGEER: Sweeping, swooping powers. I think that really better describes your debate, Mr. Attorney General, than the contents of the bill.

I can't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this administration, any more than the previous administration, would give such a thing as blank-cheque power to cities and municipalities. They were quite prepared to give it to themselves; there was never any problem along that line in the legislation they introduced. But when it came to allowing the cities and municipalities of this province to graduate from knee britches, the previous administration and this administration have always been very hesitant.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has presumably laboured hard and diligently with all the scribes in his department to produce this very thick compendium of rather trivial amendments.

I don't discount the justice of the one man, one vote principle, and I was so pleased to hear the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) emphasize that. I think it is a lesson that the government should take to heart and a principle, perhaps, even to apply to themselves.

In this Legislative Assembly there are Members elected by one-tenth to one-twentieth the votes of other Members. It is very clear that trees and acres are represented in the Legislative Assembly. That ringing phrase brought down by the Supreme Court of the United States was meant to apply to just such backward jurisdictions as British Columbia. While I am pleased to hear one Member from the government side speak in favour of this great principle, I would like to see it followed through.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Excellent. I can hardly wait, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes the footwork.

[ Page 1170 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we had a rather strange occurrence at the time when candidates for office in municipalities in British Columbia were put forward. The day nominations closed there were an astounding number of the vacancies created by outgoing councils filled by acclamation. More serious than that, there was one small community in British Columbia where there wasn't one single citizen of the town who would file for aldermanic vacancies. The clerk of the town went out to try and persuade people to run, and they refused to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the ultimate testimony to despair over municipal legislation that we have in this province. People find the powers and the opportunities given to them at the local level so dissatisfying that they will not agree to serve on a city council in order to help their own community. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they don't believe there's anything they can do.

And so, Mr. Speaker, the Minister really becomes the Minister of "Municipal Despair." I don't think that despair is lifted by this rather unimaginative set of amendments he has brought forward. Certainly not to the extent that people in cities and towns and villages in British Columbia would feel motivated to give of their time and work in the service of their communities.

The basic reason, I submit, is that the financial restrictions that have carried on for so many years have been such as to leave cities and municipalities unable to do the kind of job that their citizens expect of them.

In the decade that I've been in this Legislative Assembly, provincial revenues have gone up approximately tenfold. This coming year there will be over $2 billion provided to the provincial Treasury, some $300 million more than was forecast in the Minister of Finance's budget.

Despite that, the increases to the cities and municipalities was a paltry 6 per cent. So you can see, while inflation eats into their sources of revenue, their ability to undertake and complete projects in their communities is completely undercut by the parsimonious policies of this new government.

We have in the City of Vancouver a TEAM, Mr. Speaker, that is failing into disfavour, wiped out in their policy to introduce a partial ward system — not as badly as the NDP was wiped out in their policy to institute a full ward system, but it's very clear that the citizens of Vancouver don't want 15 useless men when they've got 10. Because it just costs money…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: …and these men are in that position, unless they have the fiscal resources to do the job. With your financial policies, Mr. Minister, you emasculate mayors and aldermen…

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't do that. I'd castrate them.

MR. McGEER: …from our largest city to the smallest community, and this business of giving votes to tenants isn't going to cure that problem.

Mr. Speaker, while we don't oppose this compendium of mediocrity, we do say this of the Minister: he's been in office over a year; he's had plenty of opportunity to bring in some policies that will really mean something. He's a terribly nice man but he takes a long time to reach decisions and the people in the cities and municipalities are waiting for action.

Heaven knows, the requirements are there and the fiscal resources are available to government. What we would like to hear from the Minister, Mr. Speaker, when he closes this debate, is when he's really going to do something in that department.

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

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I'd like to express my pleasure at the positive response from the Members in the opposition, generally speaking. I was interested in the talk by the last speaker. It was rather interesting when he said that no one was interested in municipal office any more. I just happen to have a paper here, the Vancouver Province of October 30, 1973. The heading is: "Municipal Nominations Hit Record." I don't think I'll say any more about the Hon. Member's talk. It's obvious that he was wrong from the start and he's wrong at the end.

Now dealing with some of the important matters that were brought up, I'd like to point out that in regard to the question of voting for votes for corporations doing business in a community, I mentioned when I introduced the debate that there were two basic principles involved in this area: one is one person, one vote; and the second thing is that we're hoping to have a joint voters list with the provincial voters list and, as someone mentioned, later to gradually tie it in also with the federal voters list.

Now obviously the businessman and the corporation have no vote provincially or federally. On the question of taxation, you're taxing these people, which is true. And they may or they may not live in the community. That's also true. But you know, most of the corporation taxes come from corporations, and they don't have votes. The federal government doesn't give the corporations a vote, nor the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You let that one get by. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1171 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: I thought you'd take it up a little faster than you did.

In any event I think that there would be quite a stir if it were suggested that the federal government give the vote to corporations because of their corporation taxes and income taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're all wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: So I think the whole premise that was suggested by the Hon. Members for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is completely out.

I have a few scattered notes here. There was a question about corporations or businesses in the downtown section wanting to create improvements in their area. There is provision for that in the Municipal Act now and there have been no changes in that. If they want to have a joint canopy down the street, or underground parking or Christmas lighting or whatever it might be, they can still carry on under the old provisions of the Act. Those sections haven't been changed.

Notification on bylaws. The provision for notification of bylaws has been changed in the area which I have already mentioned. Notification now needs only to go to the householder or whatever it is in the area. It doesn't have to be addressed to the owners or occupants or anything else; it's whoever is resident in that particular area in which the bylaw says notice must be given. It completely simplifies the matter; they can send it out on a postal walk if they want to.

On the question of how this vote will affect small communities, I can tell you that in communities such as Tahsis, where there are only two or three landowners in the whole community, it will give the vote to the residents and the residents will finally have some say in what's going on in the city. That's what it will do for these small communities. Certainly the residents will have a real say now in what goes on.

On the question of those corporations that use their corporate vote, as has been mentioned it's a very, very small number of people who do this. I'm suggesting to you that although we have to deal with this problem, because rather a few do use their corporate vote, it is a very small number and certainly….

AN HON. MEMBER: And abuse them.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well I'm not saying anything about them abusing their votes. That was brought up by another Member and I am not suggesting anything along that line.

Local improvement bylaws can be carried on in the same way. The provisions under the Municipal Act have not been changed regarding those sections on….

AN HON. MEMBER: The corporations will have a vote?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's correct.

Where the local improvements involve areas in which there are corporations mixed with residences, for instances in outlying areas, there are two ways in which that vote can be carried on. I think we can discuss that when we deal with the sections.

There was one other question about the finances of the municipalities. I think that that is a problem. We accept the fact that the municipalities are not the wealthiest people in the world; but yet again there is a number of ways of curing this.

One way is to increase the per capita grant. Other ways are of reducing the responsibilities which they carry out on behalf of the municipalities. Another way is the additional expenditures used for transit purposes, and additional grants given for recreational facilities. These things all go into the same pot so there's a number of ways of looking at whether the municipalities are improving or going backwards or whatever.

I now move second reading of Bill 96, An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 96 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 106, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REVISED STATUTES ACT, 1966

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very modest little bill of only one page. We've had difficulties in getting the next revision of the statutes completed in accordance with that earlier legislation.

We will be appointing under this bill a commissioner instead of one of the legislative counsel who are heavily overworked at the present time — very heavily overworked, and I hope that the Provincial Secretary who is in charge of the civil service bargaining is listening to what I'm saying.

We're updating the date for the revision of the statutes to 1976. The statutes are in rather bad shape, because of this problem I've mentioned in terms of getting out the revision and keeping up with things, and we need additional input into that field. I move second reading of this bill.

[ Page 1172 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we certainly will support this bill. There's just a matter that we would like to know before the Minister closes second reading on the bill. He's appointing a commissioner and staff — I presume the commissioner will have the power to hire staff, or appoint staff, or have a staff assigned to him. Does he have any idea of the numbers of people that will be required by the commission and the commissioner to accomplish the work of revision of the statutes of the Province of British Columbia so that they might be in a more modern form and in a better and more perfected form by the target date, which it seems would be 1976?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, often the revision of statutes have hand-in-hand with it law reform. But in B.C. we do have a Law Reform Commission at the present time and, mirabile dictu, we now have such things as bound loose-leaf statutes, which as far as I know are kept up to date every year.

It is true that under the former system, when statutes came out in a big book and then you had to have 10 little books for 10 years, there was a great need for revision every 10 years to get the stuff back into four or five big books. But I somewhat question the necessity or the wisdom for this revision unless it's something to do with law reform at the present time, because technology solved the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The staff will be small…

MR. GARDOM: What are they going to do?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …but as large as necessary. If the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey will read the Revised Statutes of British Columbia Act, 1966, he will find that the job of this commission is not simply to compile the statutes and put them into one set of books, but it is to make blank modifications in language where necessary to express the true sense of the Legislature, to rearrange the numbering of sections and to iron out some inconsistencies. Then the process goes to a select committee of this Legislature, then is reported to the government, so there are protections that there can't be substantive changes.

MR. GARDOM: Don't you think there's a bit of overlap with the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. This is the statutory enactments in terms of their language and intent, but not of their substance. I move the question — second reading of Bill 106, An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Motion approved.

Bill 106 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is the House ready for three superannuation bills — 102, 103, 104? Second reading of Bill 102.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): As forecast in the throne speech debate and in the throne speech itself, it gives me some pleasure to introduce again for your consideration some progressive amendments to the three pension bills that are in our care. There is a common thread between the three of them, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we feel as a government that widows of superannuates should be entitled to receive that which they paid into in the form of work support of the family unit. And even though they may remarry, they should continue to get the pension that the family unit spent many, many years in building up. That particular principle you'll find in bills 102, 103 and 104.

In the actual instance of 102, the public service superannuation Act, it's been drawn to our attention that a description of some of the investment of the funds and securities is inaccurate, and we've attempted to correct that deficiency.

We've also reintroduced an optional form of payment that was introduced by a previous administration in 1966 and repealed in 1971 because it hadn't been used. But we find now more and more widows, who at one time used to get the old age pension at 70 and now of course get it at 65, can operate an option. We think that that option should now be theirs so we are reintroducing that particular section.

The debate could possibly be better handled in committee, but I did want to point out that the reason why all three bills are being opened is on the principle of widows continuing to receive that which is rightfully theirs even though they may remarry.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 102, An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I rise to state that the opposition supports these bills. It seems to end a form of discrimination against widows which will be welcome in the province.

[ Page 1173 ]

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I support the three bills of the Hon. Provincial Secretary. But just in passing, it would be very interesting if he could give his attention at some point to see if we have similar equity to widows under workmen's compensation, because under workmen's compensation the concept was that the widow would not be placed literally on the dole or on the public purse, or Mincome, or call it what you will, but by virtue of inflation the return to widows in many instances is under Mincome. I think that is certainly not the concept of workmen's compensation wherein it was originally conceived that these people would receive as fair as possible and as largely as possible a measure of support according to their husband's income.

Well, then we run into the situation, of course, where a husband may have died 15 years ago and the return to his widow today under WCB would be less than Mincome. I understand it's possible to have the allowance rise up to the Mincome level but no more, but the concept was that it should be over that. I do wish the government would give serious thought to rectifying what has become an injustice in that field.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to see this bill being brought in for second reading. I have always felt that it was a terrible injustice to widows when they remarried that their pension suddenly became negated. After all, the work of the wife should be considered part of the development of the family income and she should also be considered where it comes to pension or superannuation payment.

Secondly, I don't see any reason why when the husband dies that in some cases the widow's share of the pension becomes less — she still has to live the same way as she did before.

However, that is not part of this particular bill, but I hope that will come into effect at some time at a later date. I don't think there should be any discrimination. If a man remarries and he is widowed, his pension is not taken away from him, so why should it be taken away from a woman if she remarries?

Similarly, I hope that the reverse will also be; if the woman has been the breadwinner of the home — which does occur in a great number of cases — and the man is left widowed, then he will also be given the same consideration when he remarries.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to record the support of the Conservative Party for the principle of this bill and to echo the comments of the lady who just spoke.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't allow this opportunity to pass without saying how very, very pleased I am that once again this government is taking seriously the concept of equality before the law of women in the marriage situation.

I think with this amendment we've gone further, much further, than the federal government. I hope it will serve as a good example for them to follow when they open their pension plans and decide to amend them.

I hope that this, the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Hall's) amendment, is just a first step and that what we will start to do is look at so many of the injustices presently occurring under private pension plans and private superannuation plans. I fully support this bill and once again ask this government to let us get on with the business of looking at those private pension plans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Members for their support and encouragement in this work which is really exciting in many ways, although I must confess a year ago I didn't think the pensions held that much excitement in them, but then that's been a pleasant surprise, I suppose.

May I address my comments to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) about workmen's compensation. There is a slight difference qualitatively in so far as the Act we are dealing with is a contributory fund. The Workmen's Compensation Board is not.

While I can see an argument about it being part of a fringe benefit in one way or another, they're not entirely comparable. But I do want to say that it's been my observation that, with the new chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board who, I hope, one of these days will be introduced on the floor of this Legislative Assembly…. Mr. T.G. Ison has been the author of a number of papers and learned works on a security programme that really should be much more talked about than they have to date.

It is my understanding, from conversations with my colleague, the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and with his new Deputy, Mr. Matkin, that indeed the Workmen's Compensation Act will be thoroughly overhauled by that new department and by — and this is the most exciting part of it if I may be qualitative about it — the new chairman, Mr. Ison, who is, as I say, something more than expert and, indeed, very revolutionary in some of his aspects about compensation and a full security programme.

So I don't think that many, many days will elapse before we see the kind of debate that you want to see about some of the other things that the government have in terms of benefits to widows and removing discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill

[ Page 1174 ]

102, An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 102 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 103, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this is an Act to amend the Municipal Superannuation Act and there are three points in the Act.

The first point is that the provisions of this amendment ensure continuing coverage for employees moving from one place to another, and they provide adequate portability protection when the employee wants to continue to accumulate the benefits that are his to accumulate. However, the Act does not provide protection where employees request a refund of their contributions made with the first employer.

The bill makes the refund provisions consistent with the benefit portability provisions by ensuring that, for both refund and benefit purposes, employees moving from the service of one employer to that of another under the Act will be treated as if they had not ceased the membership.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're ensuring that there's portability in the pension plans of this province. This was needed to clean up some of the language in the Municipal Superannuation Act.

The second aspect deals with the extension of permissible investments for this particular Act. You may remember that I gave a commitment last spring that once I had ascertained from my commissioner of pensions and from the Deputy Minister of Finance that the municipal finance authority had indeed now established a healthy and secure and good market, then we felt we could open up these funds for that particular endeavour.

I paid at that time some tribute to the previous administration for not wanting to "hothouse," to escalate, in any quick way that market — which they've got to develop on their own terms. I think that the day has now arrived and our investigations indicate that the market has been established by the municipal finance authority and we're now opening up this Act so that the Municipal Superannuation Act pension moneys can be invested in the municipal finance authorities. That was requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, of course, it is supported by the Superannuation committee upon which employers and employees are represented.

The third aspect is again that to do with widows, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 103, An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 103 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 104, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Bill 104, Mr. Speaker, is An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act, and here we have the singular provision that will enable widows to continue to get that which is rightfully theirs. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 104 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of the Whole House, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 70.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): As I stated during second reading, we in this party realize the aim that the government has of receiving fair market value for resources, particularly petroleum and natural gas. I would repeat that we have no argument with the goal of trying to achieve that end. But section 5 is headed "Specific powers," and I'm sure that it'll be no surprise to the government benches to learn that we're just a little concerned about the specific powers outlined in section 5.

We stated in second reading that our first approach would have been to seek a greater measure of cooperation and action through the federal government in trying to bring about an increase in the price of petroleum and natural gas. But we have some recognition and respect for the difficulties that appear to have been encountered at the federal level.

[ Page 1175 ]

If this is not attainable, then we feel that what is required is simply a marketing agency without all the powers that will be invested in this corporation under section 5.

Mr. Chairman, the comment is always made that this bill, like many other bills — and I'm waiting for the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to make his comments — one, "it's a housekeeping measure" and, two, "it doesn't have the power to expropriate."

I'll try, Mr. Chairman, to avoid all these clichés, but the bill should also…. It's very difficult to avoid being repetitious. I may be repetitious, but I'll try not to be tedious.

The principle we follow is that the goal of achieving a fair price for our natural resource could be attained in a much simpler way without all the powers of section 5. We feel that a marketing agency could be set up which would control the price at the wellhead, but we see no reason to provide the kind of authority which allows: "to explore for, develop and produce petroleum and natural gas" in subsection (c) of section 5 — to describe in great detail the various ways the products can be acquired.

This belies, in our opinion, the description which the Attorney General gave this bill when he introduced second reading: that it was a simple housekeeping bill to market natural gas. We just simply say, Mr. Chairman, that if that's all it was, we cannot understand why he has to put in the bill the power "to build, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, operate and dispose of pipelines, gathering systems and storage facilities; to explore for, develop and produce petroleum and natural gas."

We are concerned about these powers. As has been stated in many debates earlier, when the government, a very unique power in society, enters the business sector of this province or of the nation, it immediately brings in a whole new set of circumstances. In particular, in relation to the exploration for natural resources, petroleum and natural gas, the government is aware of a great deal of information from previous geological studies and from a great variety of data which it has accumulated over the years. It then becomes a very unfair competitor in the marketplace with other companies involved in the exploration business.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that it is unlikely private companies will show any continuing interest in exploration when they realize they are very likely to be in competition with a government which has all this established information and control over the leases. It is as though the government is playing one side and also being the referee with the power to move the goalposts anytime it likes by legislation.

I don't seem to get this message through to the government: when it becomes a competitor or a partner in the private sector of any business, they have a unique, unfair, all-powerful position which leaves the existing private competitors in some state of real fear and reluctant to expand their business interests in such ways as exploring for further resources.

The Minister, in introducing second reading, Mr. Chairman, mentioned that of course this wasn't a power the government would likely use. Again, we have to ask the same old question. If it's a power the government doesn't really want, namely the power to explore for resources, why put it in the bill? If the only aim is to control the price at the wellhead, why not introduce legislation to achieve that goal? If, at a later date, the government feels that it requires power to go into the exploration business, let's have an appropriate amendment to the bill.

The Energy Commission report stated quite clearly that it did not recommend the government going into the exploration business. There was a proviso to that recommendation, I admit; I am sure the Attorney General is very much aware of it.

I quote from the report, Mr. Chairman: "The commission does not recommend that the province itself conduct exploration activities so long as industry activity is maintained at such a level as will result in adequate annual additions to the natural gas reserves." I have quoted word for word.

By putting the power to explore in this bill it will automatically have a disincentive effect on the private companies. They really don't know what the score is or is likely to be in the near future because of the government's announced policy to be a partner in the exploration of our natural resources, whether it is timber or oil or gas or what have you.

As the private sector in the natural gas industry for this reason shows less and less interest in exploration, then I suppose this will justify the government getting into the exploration business. In other words, either way you look at it, the private sector is going to lose its position. Because its exploration activities are on the decrease, the government will say this leaves them no choice but to go into the exploration business.

How can you expect the companies to enhance their exploration activities when they see section 5 which very clearly gives the government this power? I have talked to people in the industry, not just in this province but from Alberta. The simple answer they give is that since government has control of the leases, since the government has the power to either post or not to post leases, since they have all the information as to the most likely profitable sites for exploration, how much confidence can a private company have in seeking to obtain leases which are posted when the government is likely only to make those ones available that have less chance of success?

Does it not seem reasonable, Mr. Chairman, that the government will tend to explore on its own those leases which hold most hope of successful finds? If you are on the other side as a member of a private

[ Page 1176 ]

corporation, would you be very confident in seeking to obtain leases which the government is posting when, in fact, the government itself is in the exploration business? Would it not seem likely that the government will explore the most attractive areas and leave the private companies to run up the considerable capital cost of exploring the less attractive ones? Should one not at least ask that question? Perhaps the Attorney General, in winding up, may comment on this section of the bill.

Section 5 goes far beyond the stated aim of the government at the time the Attorney General introduced the bill. Subsection (a) is the only part of section 5 which relates to the stated aim of the Attorney General when he introduced the bill.

If we are simply trying to control the marketing price of gas, why do we need to have power to operate and acquire pipelines, gathering systems and storage facilities? Why do we have to have, in subsection (d), the power to explore for, develop and produce petroleum and natural gas?

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we feel the effect of section 5 will be to depress and slow down exploration by private companies at a time when we are all agreed that there must be extensive exploration to try and determine what our natural reserves are. This is another worthwhile part of the Energy Commission report. Before we decide what we can export, it said, it only makes sense to know what we have in the ground as far as possible. The recommendation that we should try and determine what our reserves are is certainly very valid.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the specific powers are such that private companies will not find any incentive to explore for the reasons I mentioned when they find that they are in competition with a government which has the unique power to change the whole ballgame overnight by either order-in-council or further legislation. This seems to us unfair towards the private companies, many of whom have already put out large sums of capital. I understand they would be interested in acquiring other leases in the neighbourhood of the ones they are already exploring, but, the whole impact of this bill and particularly section 5 fills them with some degree of concern.

At this time, when we need all the natural gas we can find and when we need to know the amount of reserves, the worst thing that could happen to this province and the industry, as far as that goes, is to create some braking effect on exploration activity. If there is one, clear, unmistakable effect which section 5 will have, particularly because of subsection (c), this is it; there will be a further decrease in exploration activity.

It's with that thought in mind that I move the motion we have on the order paper that section 5 be amended by deleting subsections (c) and (d).

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The government doesn't accept the amendment to delete these sections which would deprive the petroleum corporation of powers, which are ancillary to its main object, to be sure, but which are the kinds of powers just about every other company has in this field: the power to acquire pipeline facilities. Westcoast Transmission has that power; Pacific Petroleums has that power.

It may be that we'll have to put in an inter-tie sometime; it might be an inter-tie even with the Province of Alberta. If it can be conveniently done by one of the utilities in the field, fine.

But I don't see why this company, with the public responsibility it is charged with of protecting the people of this province in terms of conservation, development, and the flow of their gas, should have fewer corporate powers than any other corporation that's in the field.

MR. WALLACE: The government has all power.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has exactly the powers created here.

Now the question the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised about the tempo of exploration is an important one, but that depends upon the drilling company having a fair wellhead price and a contract to explore, to drill, and to deliver the gas if they find the gas. Our wellhead prices in the north are probably much too low at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm explaining that to show that if we adjust wellhead prices and we have an exploration company that's prepared to go out based upon the new wellhead prices — why should we do it? Why not let the existing companies — the producers — produce, provided the wellhead price is fair and provided they see an incentive to go out, explore, find and sell the gas to this corporation? Why should we involve ourselves in that? There would be no need to. But if the producer companies did not protect the public interest in terms of sufficient exploration, even with the incentive of a decent wellhead price, then just as Panarctic, the federal company will do, they'd explore themselves. So these are necessary powers to safeguard the province.

It is unlikely that we will have to go into the producing and the exploration business in this province because we can contract out for that service. We can contract for it, based upon a fair wellhead price. But the power should be there to be used if necessary.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1177 ]

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 32

MR. WALLACE: I ask that the Chairman report to the Speaker that the division took place and ask leave to have the vote recorded.

On section 5.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I think the official opposition, when this bill first came before the House, made their position quite clear, that is that we do not like the bill or any part of it, and that we will certainly not be voting for this section, any other section or any part of the bill as it is presented and as we see it before us.

Section 5 is probably the one section which we object to most strenuously, because in section 5 we feel that the specific powers granted to the Lieutenant-Governor and to the executive council of the province…. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, that it has been the avowed policy of the NDP for as many years as I have been a Member of this House to advocate the entry into the petroleum business in the Province of British Columbia. They have not only advocated petroleum in this bill, but they have decided they want to get into the natural gas business, too.

Now if the entry of government or an agency of government would in any way help alleviate the energy shortage in the Province of British Columbia, would in any way guarantee an additional supply of natural gas to the customers of this province, or would in any way guarantee petroleum products, mainly gasoline and diesel, at a lesser price than we see it selling at today, there might be some justification for the position of the NDP.

But this bill and the specific powers granted to the government in section 5 will do absolutely nothing to relieve the shortages of natural gas or to decrease the price of petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, this bill, and particularly section 5, will have exactly the opposite effect. Because what is included here is the power for the Government of British Columbia, through a Crown corporation, to go into not only the field of distribution of natural gas and petroleum products but into the field of exploration and drilling as well.

It says so in subsections (c) and (d), for instance: "to explore for, develop and produce petroleum and natural gas; and to acquire by purchase, lease, licence, permit, reservation, discovery, location or otherwise and hold lands containing or thought or appearing to contain petroleum or natural gas, drilling reservations, exploration permits, geophysical licences, natural gas licences, petroleum leases, natural gas leases and petroleum and natural gas leases, and petroleum and natural gas rights of every description and to work, develop, operate, turn to account, sell or otherwise dispose thereof."

So the government, through this bill, has taken unto themselves a position that we in the official opposition do not believe is either necessary or desirable in the matter of the exploration and production of hydrocarbon energy in British Columbia.

All of those companies who were actively engaged in exploration in British Columbia now must realize that their days are limited in this province, that the very people who control their existence through the issuing of drilling permits and drilling reservations and the right to explore are now in the position of being their competitor for the same drilling leases and the same drilling rights.

It wouldn't take any genius to sit down and analyse where they stand in relation to the all-powerful Crown when it comes to competing on a fair and equitable basis. They know the Crown will have first call; they know the Crown can either accept or reject their applications for drilling licences and permits.

One thing should be made abundantly clear to this House, and that is that the future of the natural gas industry in this province lies in continuous exploration — the proving of reserves that have not as yet been found.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: It's a known fact that at the present time we have untapped proven reserves in excess of 2 trillion cubic feet. If it were possible to tie those reserves quickly into the distribution system, there would presently be no shortage of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the main reasons that those reserves, while they are known, are not part of our distribution

[ Page 1178 ]

system is the fact that the wellhead price for natural gas in northeastern British Columbia, in the Fort Nelson area, has been just a little over 11 cents and, in the Fort St. John area, just a little over 14 cents per thousand cubic feet.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. That's partly why we need these powers.

MR. SMITH: The Minister says, "That's partly why we need these powers."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a real problem up there.

MR. SMITH: There's nothing in this bill, Mr. Minister, that will help to increase the wellhead price of natural gas. There's nothing in this bill that will do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The corporation could.

MR. SMITH: You know as well as I do that the price of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia and to the export market is controlled by the National Energy Board. The domestic price is tied very closely to the export price. Until such time as you can get the National Energy Board to either amend that contract or amend that condition or in some way provide relief to the producing companies and to the people who will wholesale the natural gas, be it Westcoast Transmission or a Crown corporation, you will not be successful in obtaining a better return to the people who want to explore for natural gas in the Province of British Columbia.

The greatest amount of revenue received by the Crown in the last 20 years — and that takes us back to the early years of the petroleum industry in this province — has not been from statutory fees or from royalties. The greatest amount of revenue came from the right to explore in bonus bids. That was found money, Mr. Chairman; money paid into the Treasury that didn't cost the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia one red cent. It was cream; it was frosting on the cake. All that did was give a particular company the right to go into a specified area and look for hydrocarbon energy. That's all it did.

They paid millions of dollars in bonus bids to this province — the statutory fees they had to pay in the right of the Crown. Everyone involved in this whole matter of exploration was required to pay those fees, regardless of whether they drilled or not. But the thing that made the business a success and returned to the province millions of dollars of revenue was the fact that every company could competitively place a bid for the right to explore. Those bids in many of the sales brought in as high as $8, 10, 12, 15 million dollars at a time and more, to the extent that for the last number of years we have never received less than $30 million a year in bonuses alone.

The increase in royalty to the Crown will never offset the amount of money we've lost in the last year through the fact that people have not bid competitively for the right to explore in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the amount of royalty regardless of whether it is doubled or tripled from what it is now, would only have a detrimental effect on the business. Royalty is an impost after the fact; royalty only becomes involved in production when the production is actually tied in to a distribution system. Regardless of how much gas may be there or how much has been discovered, until that is sited in there is no royalty paid.

In my opinion the Crown, through this Act and specifically through section 5, has taken unto itself extreme powers that were never necessary, that will not in any way solve the energy crisis in the Province of British Columbia.

The Hon. Minister in his opening remarks referred to Panarctic Oil Ltd. Certainly the Government of Canada has an equity position in Panarctic, but the Minister did not indicate to the House that a number of other large companies, including Imperial Oil and some of the biggest in the business, also have an equity position in Panarctic.

Collectively, they went into an area of very extreme cost to see if they could find hydrocarbon energy. Fortunately, they have found quantities in excess of our requirements right now of both gas and petroleum products in the arctic.

The one distributor of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia now is Westcoast Transmission. For the government to indicate that this bill was required for them to become a wholesaler is questionable. First of all, you must ask the government the questions. (1) where will you get the supply of natural gas from? (2) are you going to force by coercion or force the people who presently sell their natural gas by contract to Westcoast Transmission to renegotiate those contracts? Is that how you're going to get additional natural gas so that you as a Crown corporation can become a distributor of gas in the Province of British Columbia?

If you're not going to do that, then obviously as a Crown corporation you must be going to depend upon a further supply of hydrocarbon energies from some source, probably from some of the reserves that we already know exist. In that respect I presume you will bid competitively against Westcoast Transmission for the natural gas that companies have discovered.

But let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman: the capacity of the existing pumping facilities and pipelines is limited; even with the looping process that is going on now, you can put only so many million cubic feet of gas through a pipeline in a given

[ Page 1179 ]

24-hour period. If the requirement of the Province of British Columbia, together with the requirements for the export market, exceeds the capacity of our plant and distribution lines at any given 24-hour period, we're still going to have a shortfall in the amount of natural gas we can get from the fields into the lines and into the distribution system for the consumption of the domestic consumers.

I frankly cannot see that even the position of the government with respect to the wholesaler position that they want to take is going to solve any problem.

In short, the only conclusion that the official opposition can come to is the fact that an energy crisis in the Province of British Columbia was used by the NDP government to set up a petroleum corporation Act which is meant to do only one thing, and that is to take over the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia and to replace the existing companies with a Crown corporation which will be responsible for the production and the distribution of all natural gas and all petroleum products in this province as soon as they can get this bill through the House.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I'd like to comment on section 5. It seems to me that the name of the game is to assure supply of petroleum and natural gas to the people of British Columbia. If we're going to distribute, there's no way we can guarantee supply or assure supply if we don't have ways and means to explore and acquire and not be in a position where we have to rely on some other source, hoping that others will supply the petroleum or natural gas to make this corporation function. I think that exploration and development go hand in hand with distribution.

In northern British Columbia, in my area alone, there are six pulp mills. There are many other heavy industries throughout the entire region, and natural gas is the lifeblood of the economy. If we're going to protect that, we're going to have to assure supply. Municipalities have responsibilities to distribute water to the residents of the community, and they certainly aren't going to run a water system if they aren't going to find ways and means to supply that water system. That's why they have to drill and explore for water in order to feed municipal water systems.

So if we are going to assure fuel supply, natural gas supply, to the people in the province, we're going to have to do the same thing. I can't see where there needs to be any doubt as to whether this is a good section or a bad section.

We have other Crown corporations. Panarctic was mentioned. Maybe it's not a Crown corporation but it's the next thing to it. There's other operations like Air Canada, for example, which is a Crown corporation. There's Canadian National Railways, there's B.C. Hydro, B.C. Railway and many other things.

We would be negligent in our duty if we didn't go ahead and make sure that we have ways and means to assure supply. It's our duty; it's our responsibility; it's a very wide responsibility that has to be exercised by the Minister. This is the only way we can take precautions to supply fuel for the future of this province.

I'd just like to mention that I'm very happy to support this bill and hence protect the economy of British Columbia.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I can't let section 5 go by without making a few comments. Section 5 of Bill 70 is a vehicle which will carry the free enterprise exploration companies for hydrocarbon products out of this province.

As far as the government having further control over the resource, they have full control today under the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act. Anyone who wants to acquire rights must comply with the regulations and the legislation set down therein. This additional legislation is now the vehicle by which the provincial government will go into competition through the use of taxpayers' money in a very high-risk industry.

We had a black day as far as the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources legislation was concerned yesterday. That was definitely a darkening picture for the mining industry, and this is equally darkening as far as development of the hydrocarbon resources is concerned.

Certainly through this legislation, along with taking over pipelines, the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources could very easily ascertain the most potential lands. In that way it need never put them up for bid but retain them in its own name. The government or the corporation would do the exploration. So all it will leave are those areas which have less potential. Can you imagine anyone wanting to come in and invest money in very low-potential ground?

Certainly there are further powers within the Act whereby, if a company has been successful, all the land in that general area can be reserved from sale through land and petroleum rights acquisition where bonus bids are paid. That can be held by the Crown corporation with the power of exploring and developing the resource in that area.

So the people who have made the industry in the province will quickly divert their attention to other areas, just as they have in the mining industries. They will go elsewhere where they at least will have an even break and can rely on their own ingenuity as to determining where they should spend their millions of dollars on the potential hydrocarbon resources which may be there for them to tap.

[ Page 1180 ]

The government has further control as far as the royalties are concerned, as my colleague has mentioned. Really, this does nothing but set up another bureaucracy which is not really needed. If we could give encouragement by way of less-punitive taxation and a better wellhead price, we will get the exploration — and certainly not at any risk as far as government or Crown corporation funds are concerned.

I must oppose this bill.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 9 approved with amendment.

On section 10.

MR. SMITH: In this section, Mr. Chairman, we find the government guarantee, through the Minister of Finance, of any endeavours entered into by the Crown corporation. It seems to me that the whole thrust of the bill is such that the Minister of Finance will have extreme powers that can be exercised without ever referring back to the parliament of this province.

There are a number of companies which have a history of success in the petroleum industry and there are many companies with a history that has been far less than successful. I have grave doubts that the Province of British Columbia has the expertise or that they can quickly acquire the knowledge that is required to enter into the petroleum industry and make a success of it. The technique and knowledge are things which have been accumulated by people working in the industry from its infancy in Alberta and through now into the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. It's been the exclusive preserve of the oil industry for the last 50 years.

MR. SMITH: I am saying the techniques and the knowledge were built up on experience. No other way. Because there was no one in the early years of exploration in Alberta to go to, to find out what you could do. So they had to learn and they have developed the techniques to a fine art now. They do know how to look for the minerals or the hydrocarbons, and they have in every respect paid their way in the Province of British Columbia.

Now the Hon. Minister can argue that the imposts by the Crown have not been as high as they should have been. He knows full well that until the wellhead price of natural gas is increased, there's no way they can extract more blood from that stone.

This particular section is like the sections contained in many other Acts. It gives extreme power for the province to enter into and guarantee loans, and to guarantee the principle and interest and so on, of bonds and debentures which may be floated by the Crown corporation. It's another example of a government dedicated to move into all the fields presently occupied by free enterprise companies in the Province of British Columbia without any real need to do so.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

MR. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to move for the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who forgot to move it, his amendment to section 17. The Hon. Attorney General's amendment to section 17 reads: "Notwithstanding that the corporation is an agent of the Crown, it may sue and be sued in its own name and is liable at law as if it were a natural person." I hope that this isn't the second oversight of the Attorney General. Does he intend…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. GARDOM: Well, do you accept my amendment?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We want to get a writ. Mr. Chairman, the Member made a valid point. We passed to section 18 and the title. Could we revert to section 17?

Leave granted.

On section 17.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name. I thought it was all one with section….

MR. GARDOM: It's taken an amazing amount of effort to arouse the government to accept any principle of check and balance. It's pretty obvious that they've come kicking and screaming to the altar of equity over this amendment.

It's very strange to me that this is an afterthought measure coming in as an amendment item as opposed to being built into the bill itself. It is something that should be built in as a fundamental to any

[ Page 1181 ]

functioning democratic philosophy.

I suppose this must have resulted from a great deal of agony in the socialistic caucus, but at least it is one iota of progress towards the enshrinement of individual rights.

I think that we cannot indicate that this is a grand gesture in the sense that we're giving a citizen the same right against the Crown as the Crown has against him, because it's not a grand gesture; it's just a very dilatory and I'd say picayune recognition of a very basic right, a basic fairness: the justice of the precept that an individual has exactly the same rights against his government as the government has against him. It's indeed regrettable that we find it coming in only within this one particular bill.

The Attorney General, I'm sure, would like to say a few words….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can't discuss other bills. It would be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: You're thankful at least I rose; otherwise we wouldn't even have had it in this bill this afternoon, and we would have had to have another amendment.

But that's a bit of a tragedy of the thing. I don't really think it's something that should be made light of, and I know the Attorney General is not making light of it, but it's high time that we had in this province the right to sue the Crown, period. I think for this to come in dribs and drabs and individual little bills is certainly not good enough, particularly when it comes in by way of amendment.

This has a great deal to do with the very spirit of the bill which we have to debate in second reading. It's extremely peculiar to me why this has arrived in amendment form. I think the day will come, when people start to write the history of this government, when the government is out of power in the next 400 years, whenever that may come about, that people will find out just how this came into being in the New Democratic caucus as an amendment, and just how the oversight was occasioned today as well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The amendment was always the intention of the government, but we lost the words of that subsection in the typesetting room. But it was always our intention. (Laughter.) It was always our intention that this little corporation should be able to sue and be sued.

Amendment to section 17 approved.

Section 17 approved with amendment.

Section 18 approved.

Title approved.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who called for a division? Some idiot?

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll divide on the third reading.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't forget now.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Petroleum Corporation Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports that a division took place in committee on section 5 and requests that this division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 approved with amendment.

On section 6.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, by adding: "Subsection (3) of the Public Bodies Financial Information Act applies to any corporation created under this section." I think there's a very genuine need for inclusion of this subsection in section 6 to ensure that

[ Page 1182 ]

there is full disclosure of what transpires under this legislation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member will look at section 8 he'll notice that every housing corporation and also any department created under this Act in that above section shall have to lay before the Legislative Assembly during the session next following at the end of the year for which the report is made. So it requires report.

MR. CHABOT: I hope the Minister is not going to try to give a snow job to the assembly as to what will be contained in the report. We're talking about the financial affairs, about a miniscule submission of a report which might or might not contain the financial affairs of this particular corporation. I think it's most important that we have this public scrutiny of what's taking place under the powers conferred to the Minister in this legislation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that all Crown corporations are, and shall be, under public scrutiny.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, all we want to do is make sure that this corporation is under public scrutiny. Section 8 of the bill doesn't do that at all. All it requires is that once a year the housing Ministry of any corporation under its direction submit a report of the work of that corporation, not necessarily any financial reports.

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with asking that the Public Bodies Financial Information Act be applied to this section as well. You accept that principle all through many of the other corporations and bodies that are set up by this Legislature and there seems to be no reason why you couldn't accept this in this section.

MR. CHABOT: It's a principle that's been enshrined in our legislation for some years. It's a good principle and one that should apply to this particular piece of legislation. Really, I can't see any justification for the Minister's failure to accept what we believe is a good amendment to this legislation, one of financial disclosure. There's nothing wrong. Does the Minister have something to hide? What have you got to hide? What have you got to fear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

MR. CHABOT: Don't you want to see, don't you want to lay before the people of British Columbia the financial affairs of this housing corporation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the sunshine in.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the Hon. Member suggested the correct vehicle for doing this.

I don't know if he's read the Act beyond the title but this Act, which was passed in 1961, requires that every corporation, association, board, commission or society to which a grant or advance is made, for the borrowings of which may be guaranteed under the authority of various Acts…. Really, I don't think that the intent of this particular Act is to apply to Crown corporations. It goes without saying that Crown corporations….

MR. CHABOT: What have you got to hide?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister. I would like to get quite clear what his commitment is. It is something that goes beyond his understanding of this Act in the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

Is he saying, absolutely and unequivocally, that there will be the kind of disclosures that the Public Bodies Financial Information Act requires in his housing Ministry? That's the important thing we want to know. Will there be that complete disclosure as, for example, the B.C. Hydro or the B.C. Rail now provide? Is that the Minister's definite intent? Does he give that commitment now for his department and his legislation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's my intention that financial disclosures will be made under the Crown corporation or a Crown corporation created under this section of the Act. But I don't feel that this particular vehicle is the suitable one under which it should be done.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment is to add as subsection (5) the following:

"Notwithstanding subsection (3), all income received by way of interest, rentals, or sales of housing, or otherwise, resulting from the development of lands described in section 2 of the University Endowment Lands Administration Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Province,

[ Page 1183 ]

and the total amount paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall be paid out by the Minister of Finance to the public universities of British Columbia, immediately following the termination of the fiscal year in which that amount is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in such amounts as are determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council upon the joint recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education."

In speaking to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it seems to us that the original intent of the University Endowment Lands was for the highering of education in this province. By grouping the revenue from these lands with these other departments which were not set up or for the funding of education, these moneys might be lost for the original intent. I urge the new Minister of housing to accept this amendment.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the intent of this section is simply to facilitate the transfer of our designated Minister under the University Endowment Lands Administration Act. It is not intended that the method by which any revenues which may be created under disposal of these assets in one form or another should be designated by this manner. I know that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is very interested in the welfare of our post-secondary institutions, universities and vocational schools and our institutes of technology.

I feel that this amendment is unnecessary at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must regretfully rule this amendment out of order under standing order 67. I quote the standing order:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session…."

This amendment clearly directs the designation of funds from consolidated revenue contrary to this section. Therefore I must regretfully rule the amendment out of order.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, this particular amendment, I would suggest to you, is eminently in order. It not only encompasses the content of another Act of this Legislature but it eminently embodies the spirit of that particular Act of the Legislature and a longstanding tradition. Mr. Chairman, I personally thought that the Minister of housing didn't call this particular section to your attention at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: He was quite right in recognizing that it was in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member does have a remedy. If he disagrees with the ruling of the Chair, then he may challenge the ruling of the Chair. Otherwise, there is no debate on it.

MR. McGEER: I'm discussing section 7 and not the amendment, Mr. Chairman, though I must say that I thought….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: May I pay a compliment to the Member for South Okanagan? Is that in order, Mr. Chairman? Regardless of this amendment, which I think…. I am not going to challenge the judgment that you make, Mr. Chairman, but I will attempt to get across to you and other Members of the House the wisdom of certain amendments. I think that if they are in complete accord with the spirit of the Acts which have been passed in this Legislature they deserve to be considered by a vote.

The Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has brought forward a very excellent point. It would have been quite proper for the Minister to have accepted that amendment, in which case there would have been no need for you to question it, Mr. Chairman. I certainly felt that the Minister's answer was evasive; it was a slippery answer and it indicated that the real intent of that Minister is to gobble up these lands and to destroy a concept which was introduced by a more far-sighted government and, specifically, by one of the greatest Ministers who ever sat in government benches in all the history of British Columbia. Of course, I refer to Henry Esson Young, who was a great educator and the person who established our mental health services here in British Columbia, and after whom Essondale is named.

This is all history, just as the fact that the University Endowment Lands themselves were really a choice. Other areas of British Columbia were considered: a large territory in the Peace; a tract of forest land in the Interior. The lands that were finally selected were selected because they were the ones most capable, in the good judgment of the cabinet of that day, of being able to provide this future endowment for all the people of the province through their educational system.

I really think it is one of the tragedies of this present government that they would be prepared, as they evidently are, to destroy this imaginative stroke. The Member for South Okanagan has eminently recognized the obligation of government and the intent that goes with those University Endowment

[ Page 1184 ]

Lands. I only ask the Minister to reconsider and, if he won't reconsider, to ask the cabinet to reconsider.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, the Minister is semi-paranoid; he's got this compulsive and overriding interest in condominiums. He's done well in condominiums and he's trying to urge housing policies on the fledgling Minister over there. He's the Williams second door, Mr. Chairman of the NDP benches.

He didn't live on Wall Street for nothing. (Laughter.) He's always had these ambitions to be a swashbuckler in land development. It was the wrong Wall Street and it was just a little flyer that he took in real estate development and now he wants to do it in a bigger way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wall Street or Wall Crescent?

MR. McGEER: I think that he has selected the wrong tract of land to gobble up the way real estate developers always do. I think he has given terrible advice to the Minister of housing. I realize that when the Minister of housing is in league with his buddy there in Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams), perhaps a full vote of the cabinet might restore some balance. If not the cabinet, then the caucus; and if not the Minister and the cabinet and the caucus, then maybe the Premier. If not the Premier, Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Now we're talking. (Laughter.) Where are you when we need you? (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, I hope I've made my point.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. The amendment reads, "By adding the following as section 7 and renumbering: '7. Notwithstanding any of the purposes and functions contained in section 4 and of the powers contained in sections 5 and 6 no land, improvements, or personal property can be acquired for the purposes of this Act except under the provisions of Part XII, Division 4, of the Municipal Act.'"

The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to spell out in a definite way how this housing corporation would reimburse anyone for properties in any way acquired. The section of the Municipal Act that I am speaking about, which is Division 4, Part XII, merely spells out in definitive form the matter of compensation for property expropriated or injured.

In other words, any property that came into the possession of the development corporation through whatever means — purchased or in any way acquired — the people involved would know that in the process they would have the same protection that any other organization or individual has under Part XII, Division 4 of the Municipal Act.

Basically, it spells out the procedure that must be used in case there is a dispute and the fact that if the compensation is not agreed upon, there is a means of setting up an arbitrator and an independent board to review the matter and make sure that the fund received has been arrived at by people other than those involved in the housing corporation itself.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not necessary. Any right of expropriation would only come into this Act by transfer of other Acts which may come to the Ministry of housing. These are already provided for in the existing legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, we're getting from this Minister the same kind of nonsense we got from him in second reading. Not only does he not understand the bill, he doesn't understand the amendments. The Minister in section 6 is given an absolute discretion to approve any corporation and authorize it to exercise "such powers as the minister considers necessary." That means if he considers it necessary for a corporation to have powers of expropriation in order to carry out its work, that's the end of the matter.

This amendment is to put in a section to ensure that there will be adequate safeguards with respect to the amount of compensation that's paid by any housing corporation which deems fit to expropriate properties in the fulfilment of the powers given by this Minister.

Why would the Minister in any way refuse this kind of a safeguard after all the years and the discussions there have been about the unbridled powers of expropriating authorities in this province, and the way in which the New Democratic Party year after year has called for changes in the expropriation laws? The former leader of the NDP, the Hon. Mr. Justice Berger, made one of the strongest speeches in this House to bring some sense to expropriation powers in this province. Here, when we're trying to put them into this bill to effect this corporation, the Minister turns it down with a feeble excuse that it's already covered in the legislation. It's not covered, and it's a significant omission. I support the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think we should hear further explanation from the Minister. It simply isn't good enough in this House to stand up and say, no, no, no, no, no! It's quite apparent that the Minister has made no effort to study the full implications of his own Act and to look carefully into

[ Page 1185 ]

the meaning and intent of amendments submitted by Members who have.

We go through a process in this House of passing poor and inadequate legislation because we're unwilling to study the way this legislation and all legislation should be studied. If we're going to have to put up with this kind of response from Ministers, we should dispense altogether with this method of debating bills; they should go automatically before committees of the House where people who understand the bills can be there beside the Minister's side, explaining to him what his own bill means.

Here the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has pointed out quite clearly that the Minister's explanation was totally unsatisfactory. In fact, he misled the House by stating that the powers provided by this amendment….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that the comments of the Hon. Member could be resolved by allowing the Hon. Minister to respond if he so wishes.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just getting warmed up; it will take me a few minutes to get back to where I was.

Honestly, Mr. Chairman, the Minister did have a chance to respond and, while we were waiting for him to get on his feet, and try and give some reasonable account of his attitudes in this House, I heard no's; I distinctly heard people starting to say no to this amendment. Even though the Minister himself may feel uncomfortable with it because he doesn't understand it, nevertheless, it's in his interests and in the interest of his government….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could suggest to the Minister that two or three of the others go down because I just think that Gallagher-and-Sheen operation over there is likely to get the government into even more difficulty. What we really need to have is some clear thinking down in that corner there.

We ask once more for the Minister to accept this amendment, which is really put forward in the most non-partisan spirit to attempt to keep the government out of the kind of difficulties that have beset other governments. I think it was almost an act of charity on the part of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) to bring this forward, because he recognized the difficulties that the former government had got into as a result of arbitrary expropriation.

Surely the government realizes now, if they didn't realize it when they first came to office, that people are kind of funny about their land. They're sensitive about it; they cherish it. No matter how widespread collectivism may be in some of the socialist states of the eastern world, the idea that people should own their land and that ownership should be protected is as old as civilization in North America itself.

I would really like to hear the Minister's comments on the opinions offered by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound tried to give us the same advice as he did on Bill 42 last year when he said, "or otherwise acquire in-city right to expropriate land." As I've said….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm not sure if the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has filibustered long enough to allow his colleague to do his homework.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Speak to us, speak to the Members on the floor.

MR. CHABOT: He speaks to the press gallery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The only right for expropriation in this Act is contained in the former and existing Housing Act, and the protections provided in the Act. So there's really no cause for concern.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we sit here waiting for an explanation; we've had instead a reference to Bill 42. Now, in an attempt to bring a sort of cover or blanket of Bill 42 around this Department of Housing Act, the Minister has failed because in actual fact in Bill 42, thanks to public protest, thanks to criticism from this side of the House, the government brought in amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment. They amended the thing totally. Now, to bring forward Bill 42 as an argument for rejecting amendments is folly. You've just destroyed your own argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member mind confining his remarks to the amendment before us?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm confining my remarks to the Bill 42 reference of the Minister where he said that this thing was the same, Now, I could possibly simply not mention what the Minister said. Perhaps we'd all be better off if the Minister hadn't spoken so far. I would perhaps agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that that would be the case. Nevertheless, he has spoken — unwisely, I feel; on bad advice, I feel. But he has spoken on this and he has referred to Bill 42 and to these comments.

The fact of the matter is that we have still not

[ Page 1186 ]

received an explanation, as requested by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). When we do get that explanation, when we get some attempt to grapple with the problems raised, we on this side of the House may be a little more satisfied.

This amendment did not come from this party, but we do feel that when an amendment is put forward it should be argued. Or at least, if the government has a defence and reason for rejecting it, the government therefore should bring this reason forward and put it on the floor. But simply to refer to previous bills in a facetious manner — and you're right here, Mr. Chairman — the reference to the bill, I think, was facetious. To bring it forward in that light and to refuse to discuss the issues that are raised, the comments and the implications of the amendment, is, we feel, simply not the type of response we would like from a Minister — in particular a new Minister trying to set up a new department. We would like him to consider and analyse the proposals brought forward.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's fairly obvious from the very terse replies of the Minister that what the official opposition and the Members of the Liberal Party have been saying, and the reasons that we put forward for this amendment have not really had any great impression upon the Minister — either that or he doesn't understand the known powers contained within the Act that's before us.

It's interesting to note that the amendment refers to sections 4, 5 and 6. Briefly, section 4 defines the functions of the department, section 5 the special powers and section 6 does indeed grant to the Minister powers which he can exercise, including the power of expropriation.

It's very clear that:

"For the purposes of supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving and disposing of housing, the minister may, with the consent of the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council,

(a) create corporations with such powers as duties as the minister considers advisable; and

(b) approve any corporations and authorize it to exercise such powers as the minister considers necessary."

Now if that doesn't give him the power of expropriation, I don't know how you would say it any clearer in any Act. The thing that is being suggested by this amendment is that for the safeguard and the protection of people generally, any decisions made or any actual obligations entered into with respect to the exercise of the powers in sections 4, 5 and 6, shall be subject to Division XII, section 4 of the Municipal Act.

We had a discussion on the floor of this House not too long ago concerning this exact section. At the time the Premier was on his feet quoting from this particular section of the Act. The only thing that was wrong with the quotation is that he stopped halfway through the section.

He said — and I'll paraphrase what he said — "Well, we're not doing anything that the previous government didn't do. After all, they already had powers of excessive nature in the Municipal Act. So we're not doing anything that the previous government didn't do."

It was at that time I brought to the attention of the House and the Premier the fact that while he may not have intentionally been misleading the House, he certainly did not quote the entire portion of the Act with respect to what happens in the event of expropriation of property and how you determine the fair compensation that will be involved if somebody objects to the offer they receive.

Because of that I think perhaps I'll have to refresh the memories of the Members of this House as to what does happen. I'm going to quote from the Act. I'm quoting from the Municipal Act, Mr. Minister, Part 12, Division IV, Chapter 22:

"The counsel shall make to owners, occupiers or other persons interested in real property entered upon, taken, expropriated, or used by the municipality in the exercise of any of its powers, or injuriously affected by the exercise of any of its powers, due compensation for any damages (including interest upon the compensation at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the time the real property was entered upon, taken or used) necessarily resulting from the exercise of such powers beyond any advantage which the claimant may derive from the contemplated work; and a claim for compensation, if not mutually agreed upon, shall be decided by three arbitrators to be appointed as hereinafter mentioned, namely: The municipality shall appoint one, the owner or tenant or other person making the claim, or his agent, shall appoint another, and such two arbitrators shall appoint a third arbitrator within ten days after their appointment; but in the event of such two arbitrators not appointing a third arbitrator within the time aforesaid, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court shall, on application of either party, by summons in Chambers, of which due notice shall be given to the other party, appoint such third arbitrator."

Okay, there is a fair and just means of arriving at a decision with respect to a dispute. All that I am saying with this amendment is this: if this

[ Page 1187 ]

government is as concerned as they say they are about fair treatment, if they are as concerned about the little people as they say they are, if they are as concerned about fair government for everyone in the Province of British Columbia, then certainly they should never exercise any of the powers in sections 4, 5 and 6, particularly if there is a dispute involved, without taking that dispute to the provisions that are outlined in this section of the Municipal Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he needs protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now we know.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Chairman, I've heard a lot of interesting legal interpretations in my day, but that's the most interesting I've ever heard. It's also the most creative and has very little to do with the law.

I am not particularly critical of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who is making every attempt he can to interpret the law as he may find it. But I am just amazed by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). I wouldn't pay that man 25 cents for a legal opinion. He should be thrown out of the bar for standing up here, time after time, saying that this may include expropriation powers.

You know as well as I do, Mr. Member, it does not. It cannot. There are cases going back 200 years that say that the statute must clearly set out those powers in express and clear terms. You know that.

Secondly, let me make this other point: the Minister….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister address the chair, please?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, a Minister, according to law, cannot delegate any power he doesn't have. So the second criticism fails.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: These people are trying to create a great big storm over nothing. I can show you expropriation clauses from that previous administration that would make your hair curl, and the people of British Columbia have suffered under those expropriation clauses.

Now the suggestion from the Member for North Peace River about putting something in there about division 4 of the Municipal Act. There is no inference at all that the Minister or any corporation has power to expropriate, no inference at all. But if you put in division 4, you might have that inference. So they're working totally against what they say they are. It's completely confusing claptrap, and you are just delaying and obstructing the dynamic, progressive policies of this government. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm happy, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister hasn't suffered as a result of my recent attention to the Minister. He's in full flood tonight and waving the heavy hand around. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I'm not about to get into any legal argument either. I've got even less reason than the former speaker to question interpretation of the law. But my judgment on section 6 would certainly be related to the words "such powers and duties as the minister considers advisable; and approve…and authorize it to exercise such powers as the Minister considers necessary."

As I say, Mr. Chairman, probably it's a waste of time to discuss whether or not that means expropriation. But the fact of the matter is that it is giving to the Minister a very great degree of power and discretion, whether or not that power includes the power to expropriate. The language in section 6, I would think, is certainly debatable. We have two lawyers — each on opposite sides of the political fence, admittedly — in complete disagreement as to whether this does or does not mean the power to expropriate.

It takes me back a little bit to the bill we discussed this afternoon, the petroleum Act, when the Attorney General kept interjecting that "There's no power to expropriate." I think the reason that this division 12 in the Municipal Act is there is at least to give the citizen the written evidence that he can know exactly where he stands if some such attempt to acquire his property is brought about.

The Minister himself has mentioned Bill 42. One of the reasons that we were so opposed to Bill 42 was that it excluded any access to compensation for somebody who would suffer loss because of action taken by a superior authority against their land. The whole purpose, I would think, trying to reason from first principles, is that the section in the Municipal Act is meant to give the municipal landowner or property holder some written guarantee or assurance that when government attempts to acquire his land, the various processes of compensation and arbitration will be available to that municipal resident.

There should be no difference; houses are houses whether you're talking from a municipal or a provincial point of view. It would seem to me that the kind of amendment we're debating makes eminent good sense. If that kind of protection in writing was once considered necessary in the

[ Page 1188 ]

Municipal Act, surely when we're breaking new ground and setting up a department of housing at a time when the whole subject of housing is of such immense concern to everyone, the kind of protection and eminent good sense in the municipal section should be included in this Act.

As the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) has said, it seems to make a logical addition to section 6 to add in this amendment. I don't think the Minister has yet, with respect, Mr. Chairman, given any answer to the repeated request by all parties of the opposition to explain why there is such a resistance to the kind of protection for the individual as is afforded in the Municipal Act. I strongly support the amendment.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I agree with the Member that it's logical, but this is the law. The advice I get from outside of this House, legal counsel, in the drafting of this Act, is that rights of expropriation have to be specifically spelled out. That's clear. It's about time, after the experience of Bill 42, that the other side realized that. To be continually dragging out this thing, it's sweeping powers and so on, is something…. I think we should draft legal legislation in the proper legal language as it's understood to be practised and on the advice that we get from learned counsel.

Now I would like to clear up perhaps what was a misunderstanding on the other side when I was referring to the Housing Act. That is not the Department of Housing Act; it is the existing Housing Act. Section 13 spells out any rights that we would have and it provides that the Public Works Act relating to arbitration apply mutatis mutandis. And that is the only area under which this would apply.

MR. McGEER: You see the negative attitude of some Ministers, Mr. Chairman, saying "no" before they even hear the argument. That's what I call a closed mind.

In the last three weeks, contrary to the opinion of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) — I want to read a direct quote from the Minister. This is from an article in that great newspaper that the government seems to be thinking of taking over, The Vancouver Sun — an interview….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Are you going to buy stock in it?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It takes a lot of money.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Even we have our standards, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: That was a cruel blow at the press.

Well, here's what the Minister had to say, Mr. Chairman:

"While we talk about the myth of pride of ownership which is accepted without question in North America, I think a lot of the value in having equity in a home and land is merely because you are not subject to the whim of a change in landlords."

I want the Members to think a little bit about the meaning of that statement, because the Minister wants to own all the land. He wants to be everybody's landlord. He doesn't believe in private ownership. He claims that that's a myth. I don't think it's a myth; I think it's one of the most real things that we could possibly have: pride in having a home. We're going pretty far when we want to have all of the land in British Columbia and lease it out to people.

He says that one of the reasons for what he considers to be a myth is the prospect that you're not going to be subject to the whim of a change in landlords. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the government owns the land and then the government changes, isn't that a change in landlords? And those poor people, if they are foolish enough to go along with the Minister's plan, foolish enough to have a lease owned by the government — what happens when that government changes and they begin to think that perhaps the taxes aren't high enough? — "We've got to squeeze a little harder."

Now when a Minister, Mr. Chairman, makes statements of this kind, that he wants to own all the land, he doesn't consider himself a landlord in the true sense, even though he's leasing something with a long-term contract. He can't distinguish between ownership in the hands of a Minister and ownership in the hands of any other landlord. He's incapable of making that distinction in his mind.

HON. MR. LAUK: Are you saying there is no difference?

MR. McGEER: Certainly I'm saying there's no difference, and I'm saying that when you're faced with that kind of a philosophy, it becomes important to spell out exactly what limitations there are in the powers of legislation.

It can never be satisfactory to elected Members of this House to have a Minister stand up, not be able to present the arguments himself, and have the gall to tell this assembly that he sought advice from some unnamed person outside this House and, on the basis of that advice — not on the basis of his own understanding of his own bill or arguments that he can present on the floor of this assembly, but some unnamed person who's outside this House — he rejects a perfectly reasonable amendment in

[ Page 1189 ]

order….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, let that man in the corner take a seat on the floor of this House so we can debate the legislation with him. My goodness me, how fast people change, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No wonder you aren't leader any more.

MR. McGEER: How fast people change. Why, when some of these Members were in opposition, Mr. Chairman, they believed in democracy; they believed that the elected Members should take some responsibility. Now they're telling us to talk it over with the man in the corner. Well, I suggest that the Minister go talk it over with the man in the corner right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Well, shame on any Minister who comes into this House and says, "I'm sorry, I have to reject an amendment and I can't listen to your arguments because last week I went out and talked to somebody who isn't elected in this House, and he told me no." Is that democracy? (Laughter.) It's asininity, that's what it is. And we've got a Minister with a philosophy that, to me, is a very ominous one.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You're being asinine, and you know it.

MR. McGEER: There are many sins in our legislative books.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, can we have some order over there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair and to keep his remarks relevant.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of defence over there can have his say, and I would like to hear what he thinks about this kind of legislation, frankly, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He's giving you two-bit advice now, Mr. Chairman.

There are 28 sins already in our legislative books which are 28 ways in which a person's land can be expropriated. We don't want a 29th with this particular bill, nor do we want the 29th to be under the direct control of a Minister who doesn't believe in private ownership of land and doesn't believe in pride of ownership in a home. He said so himself. And if any Minister needed to have restrictions carefully spelled out in legislation, it is this Minister. To have him stand up and say, "I'm sorry I can't do anything because I talked to somebody outside the House and they said 'no'," is impudence, and I repeat, asininity. I ask the Minister to stand up and give us some decent explanations as to why we should let this particular section pass through.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe it is difficult for the Minister of housing, who is new in his job and doesn't realize what sort of a deal he is getting himself into in working with his cabinet Ministers — maybe it's hard for him to understand why the official opposition want this amendment, and why we're — well, I, personally, am scared spitless (Laughter) of this government. I know that homeowners and landowners out there in British Columbia are jumpy tonight, and they've been jumpy ever since Bill 42 was brought in, because this is what this is all about. And all this is another way of encroaching….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sweeping powers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now, there goes our actor over there, the Premier, sweeping his hands and trying to…. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you why this amendment must stand, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why it must stand.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Talk to the man in the corner.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's because…. And there's the Minister — there's another broad-sweeping…the super-Minister. The super-Minister. The super-duper Minister.

[ Page 1190 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ho-hum.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double ho-hum.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman….

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be a leader too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you why this amendment must stand. It has been coming out in this Legislature for quite some time that this socialist government does not believe in the private ownership of land. It was stated during the election campaign by the lady Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). It was stated during Bill 42. We tried to tell the people and tried to tell the government what they were telling us, that they didn't believe in the private ownership of land.

But now, Mr. Chairman, all doubt has been removed because the Premier, on October 30, stood in this Legislature and said, "I think that the buying and selling is probably one of the most vicious aspects of capitalism."

The Premier has stated very clearly, unequivocably clearly, when he made that statement that it is the policy of this socialist government to do away with the private ownership of land. Ladies and gentlemen of this assembly, that's not socialism, that is communism!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't care how you clothe it or how much you holler, or how many of you cabinet Ministers stand up and say it isn't so; it is so. There's the Minister of condominiums laughing; he's the one who has made a rip-off on the land.

I'll tell you that is why this amendment must stand, Mr. Chairman, and that is why we are afraid in this assembly here tonight in the official opposition, and that is why the people of British Columbia are afraid.

What we have been telling you all along is becoming a reality. And what does the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) do? He goes on an open line show and he says, "We'll take your land away. We won't expropriate it. We have another way. We'll use friendly persuasion by taxation." That's why the Assessment Equalization Act was changed in the spring session of the Legislature.

It is time the people of this assembly and time the people of this Province of British Columbia realized exactly what is going on in the management of their affairs. It is time they realized that this true government, this socialist government, wants to do away with the private ownership of land and is going to do away with the private ownership of land if we don't get them out of office before they take all of it away. That's what's going on in this province.

And the Minister of housing, down there, doesn't really know what a gang he's in with. And if he did know he wouldn't have the guts to stand in his place and fight for what he thinks is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the intemperate language.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have asked….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have requested the Hon. Member to withdraw the phrase that he used.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the word "guts" and I'll substitute with "intestinal fortitude" if that pleases you more, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's still out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The rules of the House, Mr. Chairman…. The reason that we want these amendments, the reason we want these safeguards is because the rules in this House are changing, Mr. Chairman. And they are changing slowly. You know, if you take a frog and put it in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. But if you put that same frog in cold water and gradually heat it to the boiling point, then the frog can't get out. That's what's happening to the people of British Columbia. That's what's happening under this socialist regime that we've got opposite.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Frog killer.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you. You can call me a frog killer, but the people of British Columbia are in hot water tonight, my friend, and the water gets hotter every day.

Interjections.

[ Page 1191 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: And there's the Premier making light of my remarks, and after what he did — 24 hours to research what was happening in the stock market. Twenty-four hours to research it and then to come into this House and do what he did this afternoon. I'll tell you the people in this province will know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE REGISTERED NURSES ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act.

Bill 109 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.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 81, intituled Medical Centre of British Columbia Act.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 81.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to withdraw the notice of introduction of a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act standing in his name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Health to withdraw notice of introduction of a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Hospitals Act standing in his name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act.

Leave granted.

INDIAN RESERVES MINERAL
RESOURCES ACT REPEAL ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 111 intituled Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 111 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to introduce a bill intituled The Abandoned Refrigerator Act. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I can cool him off any time you like. (Laughter.)

Leave granted.

THE ABANDONED REFRIGERATOR ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill 112 intituled The Abandoned Refrigerator Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 112 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.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.