[ Page 1213 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973 (Bill 110). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1213

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

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Smith — 1213

Mr. Gardom — 1213

Mr. McGeer — 1214

Mr. Wallace — 1214

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1215

Mr. McClelland — 1216

Division on amendment to section 7 — 1216

On section 7.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1216

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1217

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1217

Mr. McGeer — 1217

Mr. Phillips — 1217

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1218

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1218

Amendment to section 8.

Mr. Chabot — 1219

Mr. McClelland — 1220

Mrs. Jordan — 1220

Mr. Phillips — 1220

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1221

Mr. Chabot — 1221

Mr. Morrison — 1222

Mr. Williams — 1222

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1223

Mr. Gardom — 1223

Mr. McClelland — 1224

Mr. McGeer — 1225

Mr. Wallace — 1227

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1227

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1228

Mr. McClelland — 1229

Mr. McGeer — 1230

Mr. Chabot — 1232

Division on amendment to section 8 — 1233

Amendment to section 9.

Mr. Wallace — 1233

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1234

Mr. Wallace — 1235

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1235

Mr. Williams — 1235

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1235

Mr. Smith — 1236

Mr. Wallace — 1236

Division on amendment to section 9 — 1236

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1236

On section 16.

Mr. McGeer — 1237

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1237

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1238

Division on third reading — 1238

Motions (See appendix for wording of motion).

No. 10. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1239

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1239

Mrs. Jordan — 1240

Mr. Williams — 1240

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1241

Mr. Curtis — 1243

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1243

Division on motion 10 — 1244

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 114). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 1245

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY
COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1973

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973.

Bill 110 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. Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

(continued)

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

On section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the amendment, for the final time of asking — at least for myself — I think we exhausted the points last evening as to why we feel this amendment should be accepted by the cabinet benches and by the Minister responsible for housing in this province (Hon. Mr. Nicolson).

I don't intend to reiterate the points that I made last evening, but I do suggest that all during the debate we did not hear one valid reason from the Minister as to why this amendment should be so unacceptable to the government. If it is a recognized fact that a similar amendment is used in the field of municipal affairs to settle an impasse when it comes to the matter of dealing with individuals and private citizens for property which they may not wish to sell or dispose of to the government, or to any Crown agency of the government, there is a provision there that can be used.

My suggestion is that the same provision should apply to protect people in the event of property being acquired for purposes of housing in this province. It's a simple, straightforward amendment, Mr. Chairman; it does nothing that takes away from the bill and it just reinforces the rights of individuals. For that reason I would ask one more time: will the Minister accept this amendment?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The opposition argument, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, has for its validity a very historic concept and that is that a power not intended to be used should not be granted in the first instance and a power which has a capacity of abuse ought not to be enacted.

Mr. Justice Thorson, when he was the head of the Exchequer Court of Canada, in assessing the concepts of expropriation in British Columbia mentioned that we have the most arbitrary methods of expropriation of any area in the civilized world outside of the Soviet Union. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is certainly going out of his way to ensure permanent top billing and he's winning hands down.

It's quite a departure from the continuing and bogus attacks on corporations to give shafting powers unto this Minister to hamstring homeowners. You used to hear the expression, "I've come for the rent." Now, under this bill, it's "I've come for the house," when, if and how you choose to do that, without hearing and without compensation.

Your only argument in support of this is that we wish the power but we won't use it. Once again, we run into the plural "we." And we must question whether these "we's" who seem to be in favour of this measure while not intending to use it are going to be the continuing set of "we's" or whether we're going to have a different cabinet there who will definitely go ahead and exercise this expropriative power.

The Minister has also suggested on a couple of timorous occasions that perhaps the power is not there.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): He said it's definitely not there.

MR. GARDOM: No, no. The Attorney General, I now see, is going to take part in debate. I'm glad to hear that, because he is assuring the people of the province of B.C. that the power is not there. It is very questionable, Mr. Attorney General. What does the word "acquire" mean to you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It means to go out and purchase. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Well, then why don't you put that in? Why didn't you say it means to "go out and purchase and pay fair compensation"? If you happened to go ahead and properly define the

[ Page 1214 ]

concepts of this bill, you wouldn't be running into the attack that you're receiving from the opposition. And it is a very, very valid attack. There's no question that this thing at the present time does contain an expropriative power. It does contain an expropriative power; if you do not wish it to contain that, say so in plain and simple language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you call for the vote when debate is finished. We haven't heard from the Minister yet this morning. I don't know whether he lost his tongue overnight. Perhaps he's under instructions from the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. McGEER: Not from the Attorney General. The Premier? Did he give him instructions?

The Minister of defence over there? Did he give the…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please confine his remarks to the amendment?

MR. McGEER: We've asked a series of questions of the Minister, and we're very anxious to hear what his replies are. If the Members here haven't popped to their feet immediately, they all are as interested as I am in hearing what the Minister has to say in defence of his particular bill. Naturally we hesitate to get up because we're certain that he's going to stand and give us replies.

This is a pretty fundamental point: the expropriation of a man's home and the whole principle that you can take something without fair compensation, lease it back and change the terms of the lease at any time.

As my hon. colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) says, you don't come for the rent, you come for the home. And that's a pretty fundamental change in our whole concept of housing. It's a change in our concept of home ownership. It's a change in our concept of fairness in natural justice. And the Minister has nothing to say, nothing to say.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think you should be encouraging the Minister to stand up and explain what his thoughts are, if any, overnight — whether he has considered the virtues of this amendment that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. D.E. Smith) is putting forward. If he has alternative suggestions about how it might be reworded, that he really wants to see these safeguards in the legislation but thinks perhaps some alternate wording would be appropriate, we are very broad-minded on this side of the House. Naturally we will consider supporting any worthwhile amendments or changes which he might see as helpful to that legislation from the amendment put forward by the Member for North Peace River.

The principle the Minister enunciates is wrong. The principle that the Member for North Peace River enunciates is right. What we have to do before this particular section passes is to see that the correct principles are embodied in the wording of the legislation. If the bill needs to be hoisted temporarily at this particular time while these details are worked out, that might be the best and fastest way to go.

There are many other pieces of legislation, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that need to be considered before we prorogue. The government side has made a number of commitments next week. I'm sure that they want to fulfil those commitments; we want them to be fulfilled. At the same time we shouldn't precipitously rush through legislation that will put undue powers in the hands of that or any other Minister which would be harmful to the interests of British Columbians who at this moment perhaps have a false sense of security about the ownership of their homes.

Perhaps the Minister would consider recommending the committee rise and report progress until he has a chance to consider what amendments would be best to bring forward. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could hear from the Minister now?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It seems to me that so often in this House it's rather regrettable that when the two sides of the House have an honest difference of opinion on the interpretation of words that are either in the legislation we are debating or, are absent from the legislation, that we spend hours, I wouldn't say uselessly — but I think there is a very honest difference of opinion. We have lawyers on both sides of the House and I don't think that this is being done on any partisan political basis. I really don't believe that about this debate, Mr. Chairman.

I really believe that the Members on this side of the House feel that there is a threat to the homeowner in the hands of a corporation which may be set up by the Minister.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Speak for yourself.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I am speaking for myself but I am expressing an honest concern that has been expressed by the Members of this side of the House. I don't want to recapitulate all the arguments, I merely want to try and make the point that if, as the government states, our fears are groundless then surely put into language in the bill a clearly-understood written phrase or sentence to reassure our fears. Make it unmistakably clear that

[ Page 1215 ]

expropriation is not included and that a person whose house the government wishes to acquire will be dealt with in an acceptably fair manner and that the person will get a fair price, and if there is any disturbance to the person then there is some form of additional compensation.

It is very regrettable I think, Mr. Chairman, that we had this expropriation study done, then the Law Reform Commission brought in a report nearly three years ago — two-and-a-half years ago — and here we are still in this kind of bill, spending hours in the House discussing the exact interpretation of section 6 when in point of fact — and I know we needn't belabour it — if we had the expropriation Act which the Law Reform Commission asked for, we wouldn't have to be deciding whether or not section 6 provides for expropriation.

To return to my basic point: I think that if the government is so sure that they do not mean to give this Minister, through a corporation, the power of expropriation then surely the government could insert this simple amendment in clear language saying that the power of expropriation is not deemed to exist in relation to the powers of any corporation set up by the Minister.

If the government, in good faith, means that this power does not exist, I can't see any harm in putting in a few words, another sentence, just confirming it. For that reason I have to support the amendment, although I would have preferred a much simpler, easily-understood amendment along the lines I suggested. I certainly support this amendment.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): As the Member for Oak Bay has spoken for the first time on this and perhaps spoke in a more rational manner than any of the other opposition Members on this point, I would explain to him that I believe — and have not asked that the Chair rule on whether or not this is an order because it seeks to alter a power which is not contained in the bill, and should be ruled out of order on that point, but….

MR. GARDOM: Who told you that last night?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a bit late now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On that point, I believe it is out of order and I could not accept it for that reason. But were the power contained, this would certainly not be a remedy. I point out to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that this would hold the municipality responsible for paying the compensation. This is from the Municipal Act and I can only assume that it was not the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) who drafted this amendment because he would have known better than the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith).

AN HON. MEMBER: He's looking at the press gallery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I do not intend to point out and do the homework for the opposition side. It would be rather unfair.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who is he looking for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, sometimes it gets a little difficult to look at this level. Would you like me to turn my back?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I haven't used invective, but if the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would like me to respond in kind to what he had to say yesterday, I will admit that he has learned one thing about expropriation since the Bill 42 debate; now he knows how to pronounce it -"exappropriate." I appreciate the humor that he puts in, having also been a fan of Charlie Farquharson and his history of Canada.

But this amendment would not remedy the power of expropriation, even if it existed, or it would be a most unjust way of doing so, I would assume, to leave the municipality…. If you people really…. I can't really understand. It gets very difficult to listen and try to give credibility to remarks which are made when clearly if this were a remedy for a power, which does not exist, it would hold the municipalities responsible for paying the compensation for an act taken by the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can refund it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are better ways. It's in other legislation. If a person had done any homework at all, they could have proposed a much simpler remedy, had the power existed.

I must say to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that, really, if we were to vote in favour of this we would be voting in favour of something which is really not in order. I haven't asked that a ruling be made on this. The right of expropriation I think is, or the power of expropriation, is something that should be debated, but I think by this debate we have shown it's not there. Pardon?

MR. GARDOM: Are you in favour of the power of expropriation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, powers of expropriation and the proper remedies, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon.

[ Page 1216 ]

Minister please address the Chair?

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just requesting that the Minister address the Chair.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that further comments are superfluous.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, the performance by that Minister can only be termed as remarkable and incredible. Not only does he not understand his own Act but he doesn't understand any of the Acts with which he will have to work in order to maintain his department.

He doesn't understand the Municipal Act, he doesn't understand the Housing Act, he doesn't understand the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and he certainly doesn't understand the Act that we are speaking of right now, the Department of Housing Act. Neither does the Attorney General understand, because for the Attorney General to stand here and tell us that "acquire" means only to go out and purchase is plain nonsense and renders his ability suspect as well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That does not include the power of expropriation. That's so obvious. You people are just filibustering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that this Minister should be referring himself to the problems which we have described in this bill rather than attempting to take over your job. This amendment has already been ruled in order or we wouldn't be standing here debating it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McCLELLAND: For you to stand up and say that the amendment isn't in order just because you don't have any decent arguments for not accepting it is also nonsense and incredible.

You do not understand the Municipal Act. For you to stand here, through you, Mr. Chairman, and tell us that the municipalities would be rendered responsible for any bills which would evolve out of this kind of action is also stupid. All this does is refer to a method, a method by which you can take some sort of procedures when you get into difficulty. You're just referring to another Act, which is standard legislative procedures when you get into difficulty. You're just referring to another Act, which is standard legislative procedure; it's done every day in this House. The municipalities would never be rendered responsible for any action that your department takes, if it ever takes any action.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 33

MR. SMITH: I ask that the Chairman report the division taken in committee to the Speaker at the conclusion of the sitting of today and ask leave to have the division recorded.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Section 7 deals with the housing fund and it talks about the unexpended balance of the money that was voted under the Housing Incentive Fund Act. We don't know how much has been spent; we don't know how much is still in the fund; we are dealing in the dark with that particular amount of money — $10 million. We just don't know how much has been used up and how much hasn't.

With that in mind, some weeks ago, very shortly after the commencement of this session, I put a question on the order paper dealing with this specific question: how much money is being expended; how much is being made available; how much is being received from the federal government to assist in the provincial land-banking scheme; what were the properties purchased; how many housing starts have begun as a result of the $10 million that we voted last session?

That's some months ago, both the vote and also a couple of months ago the question. As yet I've had no reply to it. I should think at this time on section 7 we should have an accounting of where the fund is at

[ Page 1217 ]

the moment and what sort of start can be made with what is left. Perhaps the Minister at this stage would like to comment upon the fund?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the fund changes from day to day and, of course, goes down. It's almost completely expended. This would wrap this up and bring it into estimates on an annual sort of basis and create a revolving fund.

We are collecting the data on this but property acquisitions are in so many different stages of completion and negotiation that it is difficult. I regret that there's some delay, but there is a very limited department handling this and there is a terrific demand on the personnel. An accounting is being kept and I would venture to say about $9 million of the fund has been expended. I'll get the answers to the Member's questions shortly.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had a partial report from the Minister that $9 million of a $10 million fund has been expended. Although he claims that accounting records are being kept, he doesn't have any information to give us on where this $9 million has gone. It's obvious, of course, that negotiations are taking place as he mentioned; but to blow $9 million in six months and not be able to account for it in this chamber is an incredible thing. We voted this money in good faith. We were quite willing….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think this has anything to do with this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It certainly does! We're talking about unexpended balance, if you'll look down in section 7 (1), Mr. Chairman. We are talking about the Housing Fund. It's in the margin — "Housing Fund" — section 7 (1).

We talk about unexpected balance. Now if that doesn't have anything to do with the section — the fact that $9 million has been spent or disposed of in some way or another in six months, and the Minister responsible cannot give any information to the House on where it's gone — this Act should proceed no further. There's no way we can increase the amount of money to be handled in this way.

I appreciate the fact that he frankly said that it's been almost completely expended. But surely, when we are dealing with this particular section, we should be able to get some accounting of where the money's gone. It happens to be one of our basic functions in the Legislature to examine expenditures of the government. I cannot see how we can pass this section. I cannot see how we in the opposition could be asked to even consider this section unless we get some indication of how the money is going out and where it's going. The specific question, for example, of how many housing starts. How many housing starts have there been, thanks to this $9 million?

Now the figure of 27 was given at one stage or another in past discussion of housing, and $9 million for 27 housing starts is a pretty well-financed figure. But for this housing fund to be effective we have to know how the money is going out, where it's going and what the results are. We've had six months. We've had $9 million expended and we've had no report.

So may I ask the Minister to perhaps hold over this section until his officials can come up with some information on this? Because for $9 million to disappear seems, well, questionable at the best. Would the Minister agree to stand down this section so that we can carry on with other sections until we get the information on where the $9 million has gone?

MR. McGEER: Perhaps the Minister could tell us, Mr. Chairman, who the people are that are spending the money. I sort of have the uneasy feeling that somebody's blowing a huge sum of dollars here, as the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) says — $9 million for 27 housing starts. I hadn't realized that there'd been that many. The fact remains that a large amount of money has gone. The Minister doesn't seem to know where. Somebody must know. And somebody must have spent that money.

Isn't it reasonable, when we're debating giving the Minister further powers, for us to hear from him exactly how he's using these powers, or if he's passing that responsibility onto someone else, as he apparently did in interpreting the amendment of the Member for North Peace River? He told us he'd consulted outside authority and had an opinion that made it essential for him to ignore the learned counsel in the House, and I speak not just of the members of the legal profession who are here, quite capable of giving their advice to the Minister, but others who are elected by the people to give lay advice. But no, there was one man that he consulted from outside, and on that basis felt it necessary to reject a very sound principle.

Now we come to another issue, which is where all this money has gone for the 27 housing starts. We don't seem to know where it's gone and we don't seem to know who's spending it. Perhaps the Minister has an executive assistant that he might consult who could tell him. But one way or another, I think, before this section passes we should hear from the Minister what the structure of his department is, who's spending the money, how they've spent the money in the past and how they intend to spend it in the future.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr.

[ Page 1218 ]

Chairman, I certainly think the sum of $10 million is a lot of money. Now I realize that the Minister intimated last night, "What's a million dollars?" You know what happened to him, eh? But even the interest on this $10 million is a lot of money when you start looking at the taxes that an individual pays. $300 or $400 a year. For some of them that's a great burden on them, and we start throwing $10 million around the Legislature; we spend money like it was going out of style. The Minister should at least have the courtesy to tell us if this $9 million has been expended on land, the acquisition of land. Has it been spent on…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I draw to your attention — I said it earlier — that this section deals with the transfer of the remaining money. The accounting of the money in the housing incentive fund is not what's under debate now. If you want to raise that question, I suggest you do it by a question on the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's where it should be answered, not here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd ask the Member to speak to section 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, section 7 as I read it says that "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, from time to time, authorize the Minister of Finance to pay from" …revenue funds and the other funds… "in such proportions…" — money in such proportions. It doesn't say how much, just in such proportions as the Minister of Finance considers requisite.

Now my point is, Mr. Chairman, that he's already had $10 million and he's spent $9 million of it. He can't tell us where the $9 million has gone and yet, by this section, he wants us to give him authority to spend whatever portions the Minister of Finance wants to give him. That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Minister should stand up and tell us: did he buy land with this $9 million? Did he use it in supervising? — which he could very well do. You know, the Minister hasn't had that much business experience; he could spend the whole $9 million just supervising the purchase and planning.

If he bought land, where did he buy it? On the island? Is it in Victoria? Is it in Vancouver? Is it in Prince Rupert? Where was this land acquired for housing? Where is the greatest need? That's all we're asking. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. I think the Minister should stand up and answer it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We are talking about the remaining money in this thing. I can maybe satisfy both sides of the question by saying that we'll spend the remaining amount in the fund in the same way that the expended portions have been expended. On the requests from municipalities and regional districts, and from the United Housing Foundation in some instances, we have also considered the suitability of certain pieces of land for housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did it cost money to do this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have had independent appraisals taken after the suitability has been decided upon. Then we've entered negotiations to purchase certain portions of land, some of which are in the Capital Regional District. In addition to that there have been a few acquisitions in the Interior of the province and up-Island and up the coast. But they all have been subject to appraisals by certified appraisers.

The purpose, I think, was asked. The purpose was for housing, not acquiring land for highway rights-of-way or other things, as someone almost suggested. That's the manner in which the remaining portion will be expended: land banking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 7 (2) talks about a fund, and it says that the Minister of Finance can put virtually the money he desires into the fund, "such amount as may be required for the purposes of supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving, and disposing of housing in the province." Now we've had basically a repeat of the words of the Act in the mouth of the Minister, talking about appraisals, negotiations, purchases, consideration of suitability, and he mentioned quite properly — and I thank him for this — that all are subject to appraisal and that the purpose is housing.

We were struck that this was a curious thing, that we'd use the Housing Incentive Fund Act for housing instead of for highways, but apparently it was thought necessary to throw that in. The fact is that we want to know where $9 million has gone. We want to know where the $1 million remaining in the fund under section 7 (1) and such other moneys….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to draw to your attention that you're not discussing the Housing Incentive Fund Act now. You're discussing section 7 of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And I'll draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that in the second to bottom line of section 7 (1) the words Housing Incentive Fund Act occur, and in the whole of section 7 (1) we are dealing with remaining moneys in the Housing Incentive Fund Act.

[ Page 1219 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: But this section instructs that that be turned over to this fund and to this portfolio, and I don't think that you're discussing that Act. You're discussing the instruction of what's in this section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we're discussing in this section, 7 ( 1), the unexpended balance at that date of the sum of $10 million, authorized to be paid under the Housing Incentive Fund Act, to be paid into a fund called the Housing Fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's going from one fund to another. Apparently the original fund had the wrong name. But by changing the name of a fund, I don't think you can exclude us from discussing it in this bill.

In section 7 (2) we go on that the Minister of Finance may pay "such amount as may be required for the purposes of supervising, acquiring, developing, maintaining, improving, and disposing of housing." It appears that the record so far shows that nothing has been spent on supervising because we don't have the information available as to what has been spent. The supervisory function apparently has been non-existent.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate what steps he's going to take so that if we grant him under this Act not only the extra $1 million but further sums of money, he will as Minister have some idea of where the money is going. Has it gone, the previous money that's been expended, to purchase or to buy out the University of British Columbia's interest in the endowment lands?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, has it? I don't know. I now see that the real Minister of housing is having her say at things — the Minister of condominiums, water resources and other things.

We want to know where money goes, and I think that before we pass the section we should be given some indication of how the one originally in the Housing Incentive Fund Act has been spent. How can we give the rest of it? How can we throw the other $1 million if it's not been properly spent? Surely it would be irresponsible for legislators to do that.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This is the section, Mr. Chairman, which deals with the Minister submitting an annual report to the Legislature, and I'm a little frightened, really, with what that report might contain. I therefore move an amendment by adding subsection (2) and renumbering accordingly: "The Public Bodies Financial Information Act applies to the annual report to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly," because I don't think it's good enough for the Minister to submit a report in this assembly that might contain glossy pictures of housing projects, of land accumulated under the land bank Act or under the land bank concept, or a glossy picture of a Minister in the front of his report. That's not good enough. We want more than that.

We don't want to know how many condominiums the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has disposed of either, because I think the press is quite capable of finding that out for themselves.

The Minister has convinced me more than ever before, by his failure to explain expenditures of the $9 million expended under this fund, of the necessity to incorporate in section 8 an amendment that refers to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. God, if we were worried before, you'd better believe we're worried now with the handling of the funds of this corporation.

There is nothing wrong: this is enlightened legislation, passed in 1961 by that enlightened government of 1961. It deals with the question of submitting a financial report, and it spells out just what should be contained in that report. That's what this annual report should contain also: a statement of the assets and liabilities; an operational statement; a statement of debts; a statement showing all remuneration, bonuses, and gratuities paid to each employee; a statement showing all expenses paid on behalf of each employee; and a statement showing each individual account, in the amount of $500 or more, paid in the last financial year and showing all other accounts paid as a consolidated total.

What's wrong with the incorporation of this Act in the annual report which the Minister will be introducing? I think we have a right to know where public funds are being expended. We're here as watchdogs of the public purse. We're elected to come down here to ensure that the tax dollars are wisely spent and to scrutinize their expenditures. We don't want any hidden figures. I think if you will accept this amendment which allows the divulging of the expenditures of these funds, it will make for more enlightened debate, it will make for more acceptable cooperation, it will ensure that the Minister is not accused of a sinister plot and of not giving a full accounting….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) gets something

[ Page 1220 ]

going with the press. He's almost as bad as the Minister of housing. He's always checking the press gallery. He's in a jovial mood this morning, and that's most unusual for him.

Really we are talking about a full accounting of the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, and I think, as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says so well, "Let the sun shine in."

Mr. Chairman, is the Minister going to sit on his fat cushion and refuse to tell us that he's going to give a full accounting of the expenditure of tax dollars? We're here to make sure that the dollars the taxpayers pay into the public treasury are wisely spent and accounted for as well.

It is not good enough for a new Minister being given the power of expenditure of tax dollars to sit back and not be prepared to vindicate himself or defend his position of failure to give an accounting to the representatives of the people on the floor of this assembly. That's not good enough, and if that Minister doesn't stand up he's not worthy of being a Minister of the Crown. He's not worthy of being a Minister of the Crown! Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What hypocrisy!

MR. McCLELLAND: It isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman. That Minister by his silence is only confirming that he will not make full financial accounting to the people of British Columbia. If he continues to sit silently, then we know and the people of British Columbia know that this housing Ministry will have something to hide and that it will not make full financial accounting. If he does not want to accept this amendment which, once again, only provides some procedures so that we can be sure that we know what is going on with the expenditures of this department, then we can only take that as confirmation.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister wish to speak, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment, we've sat and listened to the debate of the committee and the antics of the Ministers over the last few hours of the legislative time. We've heard the Minister, who has been a Minister, Mr. Chairman, for nearly six months now a Minister Without Portfolio, a Minister who has had nothing else to do but tend to the affairs of his developing department. He's been fully paid for his time and his expenses that are involved, I understand that he's done a fair amount of travelling, and yet during the debate all he can talk about when he's referring to the Municipal Act is "this thing." He stopped on "this paper." He doesn't even seem to be well acquainted with the terminology of the Municipal Act, or other Acts, or his own department.

MR. CHABOT: He knows where the press gallery is, though.

MRS. JORDAN: He has shown a consistent need and dependency upon other people's advice as to whether he should answer questions and what he should say. This has led to conflict in his own statements. In another part of the debate on the bill which we are intending to amend and in which we want some accountability, he was asked about funds and he said, "Well, we sort of spent some money." Then under constant questioning it was finally revealed, Mr. Chairman, that he has spent $9 million out of the $10 million — $9 million. And this Minister calls this "sort of spending."

The people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, call this a great deal of spending — $9 million or hard-earned, taxpayers' money. We want to be sure in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister isn't going to come into the House and talk about "sort of spending" $9 million, or $20 million or $30 million, that he isn't going to talk about the things that he's acquired, which we presume are going to be properties and homes.

Nine million dollars has been spent, and all we know is that some of it was in the capital region, some of it was here, some of it was there. Mr. Chairman, that just isn't good enough. The people of British Columbia want to know, and we want to ensure through this amendment that they will know and that we will know, exactly where this money is being spent, what the names of the places are that he's spending dollars on, what is being done with these places and what compensation is being paid out of the fund for the places that he acquires.

That is the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that the amendment is considered reasonable and that the Minister would get up and show us that he is indeed capable of being a Minister of the Crown, that he has learned in these short six months that you must also have business ability when you are a Minister of the Crown. Above all you must have accountability and credibility, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister evidently is not going to accept this amendment. That concerns me a great deal, Mr. Chairman, because when we can't have full accounting of the money spent by a department, particularly by a new Minister who has shown his indecisiveness already, I'm afraid when he does make a decision he might make some wrong ones. I think it is in the general interest of the public of British Columbia to know where the money is going to be spent. Don't you, Mr. Chairman? Sure!

You know, Mr. Chairman, the thing that bothers

[ Page 1221 ]

me is that we are not talking about $10 million. This department of housing, if it functions the way that I think the government wants it to function, could involve not $10 million, but hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a big department, it's an important department, and it's one that we support in principle. We voted for it.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the reaction from the government during third reading in committee stage when we were trying to get some decent amendments worked into this so it'll be a functional bill — little guidelines to save the Minister embarrassment later on…. I think if he's not going to accept this amendment, he should at least stand on the floor of this Legislature and tell us why he's not going to accept it.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about a small amount of money here; we're talking about possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in the hands of a cabinet Minister without any previous business experience, in the hands of a cabinet Minister who has already shown his indecisiveness. Mr. Chairman, we're talking about taxpayers' dollars; we're talking about the very dollars from the taxpayers and the homeowners of this province who he is going to build the houses for.

Mr. Chairman, I think you should, if possible, exercise your prerogative. Give the Minister an opportunity to stand on the floor of this Legislature and tell us why he won't accept this amendment. As I say, we in the opposition party voted for the principle of this bill; we think it's a good idea. But I think if we don't get more cooperation from that indecisive Minister, we're going to have to vote against it in third reading because the bill needs some changes.

We brought forward some good changes, but the Minister just sits there and blankly looks into space. When he does stand, he's got something up there — I don't know what he's looking at but he says he can't stand to look at the opposition. Well, I don't know what he thinks we're down here for. Maybe we're getting to the meat of the problem and that's why he doesn't want to look at us. But I'd like to know why the Minister won't accept this amendment.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, the old claptrap brigade is at it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the wrong Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's another defence Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You voted for the funds. You know this Legislature has control over analyzing the expenditure of the funds. You know the kinds of annual reports that you required, that have been consistently required, in this Legislature. You know we have the authority, all of us in this chamber, to review those funds. It's just too much, too much to listen to the continual garbage from that loyal opposition over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Saving taxpayers' money isn't garbage.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the few months that we've been in office, this government changed the public accounts committee. Who's the chairman of the public accounts committee in British Columbia? The chairman is right over there, the Hon. Member for the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). The chairman of the public accounts committee has full authority to review all of the expenditures of every department, and all of you know that. Continuing to peddle this kind of garbage is going to decimate the ranks of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to the point where you will equal the Union Nationale in Quebec. That's the future that you look to.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we finally heard from the Minister of defence. He stood up and gave his usual political snow job, never talking about the amendment, talking about the public accounts committee which has not even been restructured this session. Goes to show you how much he knows what's going on. He doesn't even know what's going on in his own department; he's admitted that on numerous occasions in the past.

Talk about a weak argument. You've got your Member as the chairman of the public accounts committee and the government hasn't even reconstituted that committee. What are you talking about? What kind of double-talk rubbish do we get from that Minister of condominiums over there? What a weak argument! Mr. Minister, if you've got nothing better to add to the debate than that, you might as well keep sitting down and smiling away over there.

But I think I asked a question on day 1 of this parliament, almost two months ago, on the question of the expenditure of money for acquisition of the land bank. And I'm waiting to this very day for an accounting, for an explanation of where the money has been spent. The Minister says you can get it through the public accounts committee. The Minister is unwilling to answer after two months; he's unwilling to tell the representatives of the people before this assembly as to where this money has been spent. He's unwilling or unable, I don't know which. I think you have a responsibility to speak up and tell the people where their tax dollars are being spent and whether they're being spent wisely or foolishly. Only

[ Page 1222 ]

until we get those answers and whether they're being spent wisely or foolishly.

I think we have the responsibility to ensure that there's a full disclosure, that this government does not hide behind glossy reports with pictures of the Minister in housing projects, and probably the Minister of Forestry cutting the ribbon. I don't think that's good enough for the facts of the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

We have a responsibility to scrutinize those expenditures here. That's one of the prime reasons we are elected to this House: to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars were being wisely spent, to ensure that we scrutinize those expenditures as well. I think there should be full disclosure, and that's what this amendment's all about. If you don't accept this amendment, Mr. Minister, you have something to hide.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I can't let this opportunity pass without commenting on that public accounts committee, because the public accounts committee which has a chairman from our party is studying accounts that are two years old — accounts that were held by the former government, not by the present government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has raised. It's quite obvious that if he ever sat as a member of the public accounts committee, he doesn't know how limited its authority is. He doesn't recognize that the only kind of inquiry that can be made is into the vouchers for expenditures for the preceding fiscal period. That would mean that at this particular time if this committee were sitting and carrying on its activities, it could deal with expenditures which continued up until March 31 of this year only. Nothing of a current nature whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's very important that the Members of the House, if they haven't taken time, do take the time to read the kind of information that would be given to this House and to the public generally if indeed, the Public Bodies Financial Information Act were made applicable to this Ministry and in particular to the corporations that may be established — what, in fact, is the kind of information that must be disclosed.

I don't see why, speaking about disclosures, a government which has spoken so strongly about open government — the Attorney General and his sunshine legislation — would ever consider refusing this amendment because, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Members, this is the kind of information that will be available to you without request, without demand, or without inquiry by the public accounts committee.

Why should you not be entitled to know, for your own benefit and for that of your constituents specifically, a statement of the assets and liabilities of this fund or of the housing corporation? What's wrong with that?

An operational statement, a statement of its debt, is this asking anything which should be withheld from Members of this House or from the public? A statement showing all remuneration, bonuses and gratuities paid to each employee, is that something which should be hidden? Is that not something you are entitled to have as a matter of right without having to go to the public accounts committee and a searching inquiry? A statement showing all expenses paid on behalf of each employee, is there any reason why you shouldn't have that information as a matter of right without having to ask for it?

A statement showing each individual account in an amount of $500 or more, paid during the last financial year, and showing all other accounts paid as a consolidated debt, is there any reason that you should not know what each individual expense in excess of $500 in fact was, with all the details?

Is there any reason that this Minister, his department, and any corporation that he may deem necessary to establish should not provide us with this information annually so that we can review the performance of this Minister and of these corporations? Are we asking so much? What are you trying to hide?

The Minister, yesterday, in response to a question posed to him by the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), gave a commitment to this House that there would be financial disclosure. But where is it? Mr. Chairman, we've had a number of funds established by the previous administration. They are almost, well, not limitless — Green Belt Protection Fund, all kinds of funds. And how did we ever get any information as to the assets held in those funds? Only because that Member put questions on the order paper, and finally got answers. There was no disclosure of what those funds held. No automatic statement delivered to this House annually as to what its assets and its liabilities were, what the debts were, how much moneys were paid to employees. But if the Public Bodies Financial Information Act had applied, then that information would be available.

Why, Mr. Chairman, under this new administration with this new start, are we spending $9 million in less than six months on the matter of land acquisition and housing which the Minister doesn't know about and going on to spend limitless millions of dollars? Are we not entitled to have this information delivered into this House every year as a matter of public record?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The amendment, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1223 ]

is not one which in any way hampers this government or this Minister from carrying out the responsibilities that this legislation gives to the department of housing. It only ensures, when he carries out those responsibilities, that he will be conscious at all times that every Member of this House and every member of the public of British Columbia will be in a position to scrutinize the kind of expenditures he makes. They will be able to judge for themselves the performance of this Minister and of this department.

Why doesn't he accept the amendment? Is he afraid to accept the amendment? Is he afraid of this responsibility? Is he afraid to disclose? What does he hope to gain by hiding?

Mr. Chairman, if we don't have this information disclosed to us fairly and freely each year, then I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that the public accounts committee and the Members of the opposition will search out every expenditure, difficult as the task may be, lay it on the floor of this House and make it public. If there are difficulties in obtaining the information, and if assumptions need to be made as to the appropriateness of any expenditure which might indicate some criticism of the Minister, then he has only himself to blame, because he's been given the opportunity with this amendment to ensure that the information from his department through the Department of Finance comes in the form in which he wishes to present it. All this talk about public accounts and the accountability of the Crown is something which, after all these years and all the difficulties we had under the previous administration, should no longer need to be debated in this House. Be honest with us and with the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's an emerging pattern from the opposition that they bring in amendments which are absolutely unworkable. If the Members would take the trouble to read the Act respecting public bodies financial information, there is no definition section, for one thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It cites that "every corporation, association, board, commission or society to which a grant or advance may be made, or the borrowings of which may be guaranteed under the authority of various Acts, shall give a statement of assets, liabilities, operational statements…" and so on.

It would be, of course, the intention under section 4 of this Act, in the case of a non-profit society such as, for example, the United Housing Foundation where an advance is made…

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure. "They should disclose…."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: "They should disclose," yes, and so on and so forth. And by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council we can direct that this shall apply to such a grant under section 4. The actions of the department are accountable and there will be no need to hide things.

I must point out that the area of land acquisition is a sensitive area. People point out things about business practice and such. Until a particular acquisition has been completed, it's most unwise to disclose selling prices or the fact that any activity is even taking place in a certain area.

MR. McCLELLAND: You don't do it until the sale is completed.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It might involve five or six sales to complete one transaction. But certainly, until these things are complete, it would not be doing the people of the province a service to disclose that the activity is taking place. It would increase costs; it would be a burden to the people of the province.

This Act is really not the proper instrument to require financial statements for a governmental department. I've read it. I feel that disclosures will be made in this department as they are in any other that…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we're afraid of.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …has a great deal of financial expenditure. There will be estimates and such.

MR. GARDOM: The last remark of the Minister was the most interesting one of all. He said that he supposed disclosures would be made in this department as they are made in other departments. I would presuppose that the Minister would say — if I asked him what are the amounts of capital cost expenditure expended to date and for what purposes, by or for the department of housing, furnishing full particulars, and what are its capital cost expenditures so far estimated or projected for the future, furnishing full particulars — that those answers would come in readily. That's just a bunch of hogwash!

We've asked the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that very question about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia six weeks ago and there hasn't been one

[ Page 1224 ]

word of answer from him yet. What we're requiring here with this amendment is not accountability via inquisition, not by virtue of dragging the Ministers of the Crown kicking and screaming into giving information. We're asking under this amendment for accountability as of right — and it should be as of right; it's public money.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know whether we should ask this Minister to get up and answer questions any more, because each time he does he betrays himself more. Now we know that he doesn't understand the Public Bodies Financial Information Act either. I believe before this debate is over we'll find that he doesn't understand any of the Acts in government …

AN HON. MEMBER: Or anything else.

MR. McCLELLAND: …or anything else. It's incredible that the Minister would stand up and say that this kind of Act applies only to a society where the government gives it a grant. All you have to do is read the kinds of bodies that it already applies to and you'll see that's utter nonsense — the Municipalities Assistance Act, the Hospital Insurance Act, the Government Liquor Act, the Power Act, the Public Schools Act and on and on and on. It's an Act which is only for the protection of the people of British Columbia so that they may have full disclosure. I say once again, if you reject this amendment out of hand, as you've done, then you confirm that you're not in favour of full disclosure for your department. And that's criminal.

One of the other arguments that the Minister Without Portfolio made was that "we can't disclose because we can't interfere with the area of negotiation for land acquisition." Nobody expects you to interfere with that right of privilege and that right of confidentiality. All we want you to do is tell us after you've made a purchase. We don't want to know before what kind of negotiations you're making, but once you've made a purchase we expect you to tell the people of British Columbia how much you paid for whatever it was you bought — and in every other area of concern as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. McCLELLAND: It might be a good idea to rise and report progress on this bill so that the Minister could go out and study some of the related bills which will relate to his department and bills with which he'll have to work in order to make his department work, because he obviously…

AN HON. MEMBER: He should go and consult that man.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, he should go out and consult that friend of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), the man in the corner, the man from outside this Legislature…

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's up in the gallery.

MR. McCLELLAND: …up in the gallery or wherever he is, the man who's giving the Minister all this bad advice. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: They've got no Members in the House over there. How come?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand the Minister's reluctance. It's difficult to understand why the Minister doesn't want to provide for a full disclosure in his department.

This is a good Act. It's an Act that adds to the other protections in this Legislature, so that we know that the bodies which are set up by action of a particular Ministry will be responsible to the people of British Columbia and to this Legislature.

We have a bill before the House which will ask for all of the corporations which this department will be setting up to fall under the jurisdiction of this Act. There's no other jurisdiction in Canada or in North America or anywhere else that I can think of, Mr. Chairman, which has given itself the power to pick the pockets of the people of British Columbia with almost unlimited abandon.

The reason we need to ask that this kind of Act be applicable to this kind of legislation is that the government cannot be trusted. It has shown that it can't be trusted with an open key to the Treasury door with no accountability. All we are asking for is accountability. This government, in its few months of operation, has thrown the concept of fiscal responsibility right out the window. That's what concerns us.

Every time the Minister gets up and talks about what an Act means and what an Act doesn't mean and betrays his ignorance about the workings of government and the workings of his own young department, then our fears grow worse. That is why we are so insistent for that measure of accountability which we're not getting from this government. It's not good enough for that Minister to say, "I suppose we'll report to the Legislature in the same manner that other departments are required to report." That's what scares us, Mr. Chairman. That's the kind of thing we want to protect in this government.

[ Page 1225 ]

MR. McGEER: The Minister of housing on the one hand has given us false reassurances and on the other has given us terrifying insights.

On the one hand he tells us that, of course, there will be full disclosure, he even reads sections of the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. He neglects to tell us that nowhere in that Public Bodies Financial Information Act is there any reference to his particular bill. So it requires either an amendment to this bill or an amendment to the other before there is any obligation at all to disclose. That amounts to a false reassurance.

The terrifying disclosure comes when he tells us that it would be against the public interest to disclose what the government was doing. Suddenly I had that deja vu experience of all the years of debate we had in this House about land deals of the former government and their friends where the lack of disclosure was the base of the complaint. In this case, it will be the government which will be glumming individuals out of the full value of their land; in the other case, it was friends of the government.

The principle is the same. If you are failing to disclose, you are being sneaky and evasive. What you are doing is denying the person who is selling the opportunity to get full and fair value for his land. That's why government, more than anyone else, must lay their cards face up on the table.

Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing is a whole pattern. The Minister of housing is the one we are questioning today, but we have seen it appear in legislation in any number of Acts undertaken by the Ministers. Quite frankly, the one I just couldn't quite stomach was from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) trying to tell the Members of the Legislative Assembly how it was in the public accounts committee. Believe me, he's not above land speculation. I never heard anybody criticize others more strongly while he was doing it himself; I never heard any Minister stand in this House and castigate a government more thoroughly for secretiveness and evasiveness, and then find the Minister doing precisely the same thing in a much more skilful way.

Mr. Chairman, he was the Minister who appeared before the public accounts committee, rounding up the NDP majority in that committee to try and sidetrack the efforts of the committee just to have the executives of the B.C. Hydro appear and describe the general policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks….

MR. McGEER: I know the Premier doesn't like this sort of thing to come out and I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. We discovered, not more than five months later, the real reasons for that Minister's actions. Why don't you stay in here for the debates and you would understand what we are discussing. It would pay you to spend a little more time listening to what is said in the House and less giving interviews out in the corridor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: What we're discussing here is the financial accountability of that Minister's department and the fact that he is trying to avoid the issue of placing the details of his department's expenditures under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

HON. MR. BARRET: Absolute nonsense.

MR. McGEER: "Absolute nonsense," says the Premier. This is what happens when you are not present for debate. Had he been present, he would have heard what we said earlier: namely that there is no requirement in the Minister's bill that it come under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. All the Acts listed under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act naturally don't include this one because it hasn't yet been passed. You either bring in a simultaneous amendment to that other Act or you include the necessary amendment to this Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's debate the amendment.

MR. McGEER: That's why, Mr. Premier, had you been present for the debate, you would be aware of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please address the chair?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, all I am doing is reviewing some of the arguments presented by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) in his typical bombastic fashion.

He tried to tell us that all of the information we were asking for would be available in public accounts. Bunkum! Who appears before public accounts trying to prevent even the simplest information from surfacing? That very Minister. He didn't want us asking the executives of B.C. Hydro the kinds of questions about the overall financial operations of that corporation. Only the information he would like to present on the floor of the House is the information elected Members should get.

He isn't a director of the B.C. Railway, but when they appeared who was running defence for them? The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Then we soon learned why it was he was running defence: the questions we were asking were a little too sensitive. We were prevented

[ Page 1226 ]

from making investigations at that time. When the Comptroller-General went in — we have no Auditor-General in B.C. — what we suspected as being true was true. The one Member of the government who knew that, was the Minister of Transport and Communications who was trying to sidetrack that committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. McGEER: He is strangely silent. So you see, Mr. Chairman, the Ministers of the Crown whose interests are vitally affected are the ones who come to the public accounts committee to try and prevent the elected Members from getting the information and revealing it to the public. That's a principle which is well established by this government.

I want to commend the Premier, Mr. Chairman, because he hasn't come to public accounts to do that sort of thing. Indeed, he's been helpful. He sent the Comptroller-General in to look the situation over and he's made the reports of those civil servants available. That's certainly a step forward because it not only gives information to the public through the elected Members but it shows the rot that sets in with the kind of system that denies public accountability.

B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail were required to report under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, but we can't get detailed vouchers. I have been asking for those vouchers for years. Both the civil service and the government Members always run around and defend against that kind of scrutiny.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No. I'm not attacking the civil service. I'm saying that they try and defend what they are doing and you defend them too. You defend what you are doing. It's mutually advantageous to do that, very advantageous: not to have public scrutiny of your financial actions. It makes it much easier to operate, much easier. But that isn't in the public interest, as we've found out so often in the past.

Now we've got one more Act, one more Minister in the Act… $10 million, $9 million of it gone on 27 housing starts — and he's not even sure where that went.

So you can see the necessity for reforming the whole system. The public accounts committee isn't even sitting during this session of the Legislature because it hasn't been constituted. We're not allowed to look into any of the spending accounts of any government department or Crown corporation. That's how interested the government is in this kind of scrutiny.

When the Minister is already telling us how dangerous it is to disclose the actions of his Ministry, giving us false reassurances about what he intends to provide for us — not in any way required to do so by statute — taking advice from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) right on the floor of the House, who has run interference for the Crown corporation he serves just as the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has done the same for the Crown corporation he serves, we're supposed to stand up here and accept those kind of explanations.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that isn't good enough. It wouldn't be good enough even if this amendment were passed. It would certainly constitute a start. It wouldn't allow us to probe into the propriety of any expenditures or advances that were made because we wouldn't be able to get our hands on any vouchers. We would only get the overall statement that appears in that public body — which is an advance; the former government should be commended for having introduced it.

Even that requires a system for greater exploration. We have no auditor general; that's a handicap. Of course, Mr. Chairman, now we're playing the market: telephone company, mining companies, mutual funds. What is he going to invest in, Mr. Chairman — Block Bros.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: Buy up the "108"; Wall & Redekop, certainly. There are all kinds of opportunities because he can form a corporation to do these things.

But nowhere do I see anything in this Act that would require him to reveal whether he were investing in Block Bros. or a service station along the Cassiar-Stewart highway. All of these things are quite possible.

All that we want is to see the government voluntarily provide a few restraints on their own powers and begin, through their legislation, to live up to all those promises they made in speech after speech after speech, when they were in opposition, that they would be an open government.

I can remember the session we had last fall. They tried to kid us along about how open the government was going to be. They put a little report out here and a little report out there. Then the iron door came down. Act after Act after Act — purchase, lease, acquire, and then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could pass such regulations which were not inconsistent with all those broad powers — for Transport, for Mines, for virtually every department.

Buy stock in any corporation — no controls built in even if they were telling what they were doing, no guarantees of any kind. They could go ahead and spend the people's money in any way they saw fit. And if they make mistakes with it, well, they'll bury those. They'll put them down one of those abandoned mine shafts we're going to have in British Columbia.

[ Page 1227 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Lots more where that came from.

MR. McGEER: The Minister's explanations aren't good enough. There are important matters of principle here and we don't like the double-talk from the government. They said one thing when they were in opposition and they're doing a very different thing when they're in government.

I'd like to hear from the Minister just exactly how he rationalizes all of this. I would like the Premier to join the debate and tell us about his open government — perhaps also the Attorney General. Let's have some indication of just how open this open government intends to be.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief. I have listened to the debate and I can certainly recall sitting in this House listening to the NDP Members, who were then the opposition, making just about every single one of the points made by the opposition today. It is in sad contradiction to that stance which they took that we see their performance today.

We have all heard in this debate how we have a crisis in housing and, as one of the former Members mentioned, very large sums of money will inevitably be involved. And here we're dealing with further corporations to be set up.

I can remember the Premier, when he was official Leader of the Opposition, making some very penetrating, valid, angry speeches in this House, waving and gesticulating at the former Premier from South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett), demanding that the government of that day pay heed to the fact that it was taxpayers' money that was being spent by these Crown corporations and that there had to be accountability.

I agree that the Premier has, in some measure, widened the effectiveness of the public accounts committee. But I get the impression in debating this amendment that the attitude of the government seems to be that if each Member of the opposition wishes to be a Sherlock Holmes and go to a great degree of detective work, by dint of much effort, much time and conscientious research he could probably find out all the financial information which we, as Members of the opposition, are entitled to.

The opinion of this party is much simpler than that. It should not be necessary for the opposition to be a bunch of detectives. If the government believes in open exposure of its financial affairs, they should be taking the initiative of including in the legislation a clear responsibility to come forward and provide all the financial information without the scrutiny and detective work which seems to be necessary to get to the root of what is going on in this kind of department.

Former speakers have mentioned that this bill apparently does not come under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. It may well be that the Premier can tell us that he intends to do this. Perhaps we should have an amendment brought in right now by the government to clarify that point.

It is really distressing for me to try to accept that the opposition has to spend hours of debate hammering away at a vital principle which this government itself was so keen to support when it was in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WALLACE: That is the toughest part for me to take today. The same comes up on the subject of expropriation, and I've got an amendment coming up on that in just a minute. The toughest thing for me to take today and on previous days is on matters of principle: the rights of the individual, avenues of appeal, the protection of his property, defence against government powers. These were all things that that very government used to preach from this side of the House. That, surely, is very hard for the Premier to refute.

I can remember the number of times I have looked down and admired the Premier at that time for fighting for these kinds of ideas that I'm in this House to fight for. Here we come today and get nothing but namby-pamby answers from the Minister of housing when all we're asking is that this bill should make it very clear that with the vast sums of money that that department is going to spend, it should not require a bunch of legislative detectives to find out who's paying for what and when.

That is why I feel that the Premier right now can set the record straight and introduce whatever amendment he considers necessary to satisfy a very valid demand on a point of principle: the accountability of government to the taxpayer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I prefer responding, quite frankly, to the valid questions raised by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), made without hysteria, and without the clichés that are involved.

In terms of the public scrutiny, I have not forgotten my role when I was Leader of the Opposition. I think, if you'll permit me, because you have asked these questions under this section, I should remind you of some of the things that we've already done.

We have made a Member of the opposition chairman of the public accounts committee; we have doubled the research staff to the official opposition; we have assured that each opposition party has a research officer. None of these moves was ever present in the House before, Mr. Member.

I don't want necessarily to apply these remarks to the official opposition, and go through the old

[ Page 1228 ]

hypocrisy arguments all over again. It was a commitment we made. It was never available under the former government. But it should be restated, because those who wish only to be involved politically in the thing should be reminded of their own political past.

Two research officers for the official opposition, one research officer for each opposition party, instituted by the New Democratic Party government. Never done before in the history of this province. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, a Member of the opposition is the head of public accounts.

Mr. Chairman, along with this, the opportunity of questioning a Minister through estimates is there. Mr. Member, along with bringing in the auditor-general's reports on BCR and B.C. Hydro and making those available to the House — which I've already done — I tell you right now that this Crown corporation will be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There will be no way, Mr. Member…. This argument of including it in every single bill I find not valid at all. I'm telling you right now that this Crown corporation will be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

I have not, as Minister of Finance, played any of the games of the former administration. I have not been involved in recanting on any of the commitments I have made. I lived through that kind of fiscal nonsense for 12 years and I don't intend it to go on in British Columbia, whether we're in power or someone else is in power. We've had enough of that.

If you'll examine another bill introduced today, it's to eliminate the sham in terms of grants to the B.C. Railway instead of expanding shares like they played games with before. It's an outright grant. We're being honest about the handling of funds in British Columbia.

Mr. Member, in the opposition on this issue I challenge you — not so much that claptrap group over there because of their incredibly horrible record in this matter. I'm speaking directly to you, Mr. Member, and to the Liberal group, who have been consistent in this regard and who have the only valid claim on a basis of argument in this debate. Certainly not the official opposition, based on their history.

I assure you that this will come under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. It will be supervised as is every Crown corporation. The actions of every single Crown corporation, every single penny that's spent by this government will be available for the Members of this House.

If you don't have enough research staff — which we've doubled for the official opposition, made available for the first time to the Liberals and to the Conservatives — then make an appeal to me for more research staff. If you can validate your appeal we'll give you more research staff. We want the opposition to work and to work efficiently.

We'll make everything available including secretarial help, as we've done and which they never did, and research staff for minor opposition groups, which they never did. We will assist even further with secretarial help. If you don't have enough time in public accounts under that chairman, we'll make more time. We want everything possible to be out on the table.

There it is, Mr. Member, there it is. To go through this whole nonsense on every single section — not from you or from the Liberals but from that group — is sheer hypocrisy in my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MRS. JORDAN: $52,000 a year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, did you send your money back? You sent your money back?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the words of the Premier. We certainly appreciate the fact that he has made available research staff to Members of the opposition. We recognize the fact that the public accounts committee is now under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). We applaud him for that. We thank him for bringing forward the B.C. Rail reports as he's doing and promised to do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want thanks. It's just good government. It's the way it should be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's good government and we thank you for providing, Mr. Premier, good government in this respect.

We also thank you for the sentiments which you've expressed. But perhaps this morning when you were out of the chamber, you overlooked the fact that we came across a situation where $9 million of public money has apparently been spent and no information….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that question's on the order paper. It will be answered.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be answered!

MR. GARDOM: When?

[ Page 1229 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem is, Mr. Premier, you're perfectly correct; a series of questions is on the order paper. The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), is perfectly correct; they've been there since the beginning of the session.

MR. GARDOM: We haven't heard anything about the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because the information is not available.

MR. GARDOM: Why didn't he say that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want that as the answer? Okay, that's the answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We asked for information on ferry contracts, simple things like what were the specifications given to two separate companies, one in Canada and one in United States? We don't get replies.

It's a perfectly simple thing to compare yourself to the previous administration. I would agree that your government is performing better than the previous administration in regards to reporting, but it's a simple thing to compare yourself with something that is bad and say you are better.

We're asking you to go out and realize that many of our questions are motivated by a genuine desire to check on public accounts, a genuine desire to make sure the people's money is properly spent and also a desire to make sure both opposition and government in this province have the confidence of the people. They're not motivated, as you seem to think, entirely because of Machiavellian….

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not suggesting that of you or of them; but I can't take it from that group over there. I'll tell you that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Premier, you correctly point out a certain problem that we all face when we hear the official opposition who were responsible for a number of practices which you have correctly pointed out were very bad. There's no problem for us in the Liberal Party — I don't know about the Conservative Party — to accept your point there. But what we are saying is: Forget about the past; forget about how bad it was; try to compare yourself with something that is a great deal better.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will come under the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. All Crown corporations will. Now if you're not prepared to accept that, let's have the vote and get it over with.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are consistently getting assurances from Ministers which are not written into legislation. The point that we would like to put across to you once again — and we've been attempting to do it on bill after bill: If it's not in legislation we are at the whim of a cabinet; if it's in legislation we are not and we have some constitutional legislative validity for our questioning.

When we don't get questions answered by Ministers in a forthright manner, when we don't get them answered within a reasonable time frame, we feel, regardless of what you're doing in terms of improving on past records, there is plenty to be done now. This constant burying your head in the sand, constant reference to what happened more than a year ago, is well and good; but it does nothing to help us at the present time and nothing to help the people of British Columbia.

In situations such as this, where Ministers cannot explain $9 million worth of expenditure, we have every reason to be concerned. We will continue to be concerned; we will continue to raise these points until such time as we get the legislative requirements that we think we need and until such time as Ministers start answering questions in a forthright and open manner instead of by way of concealment or ignoring questions, as they are doing with question 30 on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's reference to his research officers really has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're asking for in this amendment. We appreciate that we have those research officers and the help that we're getting. It's a great help. It began as a programme of the official opposition and it was expanded on by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: We asked for years.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's all. As a new Member I appreciate the help very much and I thank you for it. But research officers are generally used as investigative officers, to a large degree and to give the Members of the Legislature help in preparing legislation that they might want to bring before this House. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out, we don't want it to be one of our responsibilities to have to dig for every piece of truth in financial responsibility from this Government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your job as the opposition.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's your job as the government, Mr. Premier to make that information

[ Page 1230 ]

available.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're incredible!

MR. McCLELLAND: It's your job, Mr. Premier to make that information available. You've just confirmed, as has your Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), that you don't intend to have public accountability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not true! That's not true!

MR. McCLELLAND: You expect, Mr. Premier….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign if that's not true? Will you resign if that's not true?

MR. McCLELLAND: You expect…. Sit down!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Stake your seat on it! Stake your seat on it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member speak to the amendment?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stake your seat on it. Do you mean it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Bulldozer tactics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stake your seat on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Langley please continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Stick to the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier, in his comments to the amendment, has indicated that he agrees with his Minister of housing that we won't have full public accountability.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister's assurances are no good because he's shown us in the past that we can't accept those assurances, and all we ask is that he put his money where his mouth is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not that. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: If he's going to, as he says, make sure that the corporations set up under the auspices of this department will come under the direction of the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, then do it. That's all we're asking for, first of all, in this amendment; we're asking you to accept the amendment so that we know that those assurances will be kept.

Both the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) have said we either have to do one or the other; we have to accept this amendment, or we have to make amendments to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: No you don't.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that if you're not prepared, as you don't seem to be prepared, to accept this amendment, then why don't you stand up and give us a public assurance right now, both of you, that you will accept the bill standing in this House on the order paper in my name which calls for amendments to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, including the Department of Housing Act? It's a bill that's in order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It doesn't need amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course it needs an amendment, because it won't be done without an amendment. The Attorney General is once again displaying his ignorance about legislation before this House.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's consistent at least, that's right.

The bill must be amended or you must accept the other bill. And if this government will stand up and assure us, not with some kind of vague assurance, but that you will accept the amendment to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act that we put forward and include the Department of Housing Act in it, then we'd be happy to accept that public promise from the Minister and from the Premier. But no other way can we accept it, except under those conditions. We won't stand here and allow the Premier, to baffle and boondoggle the people of British Columbia in the manner he's so accustomed to, because we cannot accept his assurances. He's shown us in the past that his assurances cannot be accepted.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier for his statements which we asked for. They're reassuring.

At the same time, I think that there's still a vital

[ Page 1231 ]

point at stake because neither the Premier nor the Minister nor the Attorney General have given us any indication of what would be harmful to this objective by accepting the opposition amendment. What we seem to be running into is the same kind of stubborn obstinacy that has so plagued this Legislature in the past. Some legislative draftsman writes a bill which is presented by a Minister who's unsure of its implications. This lack of confidence and knowledge, and it often extends to other Ministers like the Attorney General, is exposed when they're unable to cope with something even fairly simply which is presented by the opposition. So they give reassurances that at a vague future time….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vague?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we said specifically that when there's a grant, it will be under this Act. Read section 4. Don't lecture this House about that.

MR. McGEER: I'm not lecturing the House. You see, Mr. Chairman, how irritable this Attorney General is.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He brought in a sunshine bill every year; he was the acknowledged wit of the Legislative Assembly, always cheerful and good natured. Now he's in government defending the indefensible — irritable, short-tempered. Next his squash game will start falling off, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Some say that happened many years ago. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, expressions of goodwill and good intent, no matter how honest, sometimes aren't followed through. I'd have been much happier had I heard the Premier's statement coming from the Minister of housing or the statement coming from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources or the Minister of Transport and Communications. But what has happened — and we've had experience now with each of these Ministers — is they don't say the kinds of things the Premier says; they don't act in such a way as to carry out the intent he expresses. No, Mr. Chairman, given an opportunity out of sight of the Premier, they do exactly the opposite.

I quite agree that progress has been made. I want to thank the Premier too for giving executive assistance to the opposition parties for probing a little bit into the Crown corporations — something we weren't able to do in public accounts, and giving us information which confirmed the suspicions that we had.

If we seem to be aggressive and insistent, it's because we know we were right in the things we were wanting to do all along and that partial steps are not enough. We've got to set up thorough, foolproof systems of accountability. And however much the Premier may wish us to have this information, the fact remains that that wish does not penetrate down even through his cabinet Ministers, much less the officers of the Crown corporations and the people who work for them who might have every reason to want to prevent financial information seeing the light of day in public.

We don't have an auditor general in British Columbia, something which is pretty standard. We can't say that we really hold the light to anybody else until that comes along. I presume that the government will sooner or later get around to correcting many of the worst abuses that existed before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turned the bill down this year again.

MR. McGEER: Yes, they've turned it down three times now. Three times it's been turned down by the Attorney General. He turned down the bill.

But, Mr. Chairman, we're embarking on a much broader course of action, in a financial way, under this government than under the previous administration. There's now open speculation on the stock market. There is the movement of the government into the private enterprise field — coal, sawmills, pulp mills, newsprint mills, car insurance, general insurance, and that's just the beginning. All of these moves require accountability of a kind never necessary until the moment the New Democratic Party took over as government.

Something, Mr. Chairman, that is more important in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction in Canada, because while we have socialist governments in other provinces, nowhere do we have those socialist governments entering into the private sphere as they are in British Columbia, and speculating with the public's money in the fashion that this government is doing. Because this new dimension has been opened up, we on the opposition, acting on behalf of the public — and remember 62 per cent of the public is against the New Democratic Party government, the majority of the people are against what you stand for; they're against these moves; they're against the expenditure of tax funds in these ways, and they said so at the polls….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you try to stick to the amendment?

[ Page 1232 ]

MR. McGEER: Yes, you have an enormous, overwhelming majority in this House, but not for the economic system that you're introducing. And this particular amendment bears directly on that economic system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're being repetitive….

MR. McGEER: We've got to ask for and receive ironclad systems of accountability to protect the majority of the citizens of British Columbia who disagree with what you're doing in order that their taxation funds can be protected, because they're being exposed, exposed in a way they've never been exposed before — where not just a few thousand dollars here and there might be involved, but millions and millions.

While we welcome the statements of the Premier and congratulate him for the progress he has made in correcting past abuses, we warn him that good intentions are not enough because it's very evident to us that these intentions are not being carried through even by his cabinet Ministers.

But more than that, he himself is taking his government, with the taxpayers' money, into a completely new land of government endeavour, and that new land requires itself new systems of accountability which have to be introduced in this province. No one on the government side has explained what harm it would do to accept this simple amendment. And unless and until you can explain to us….

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't explained what good it will do.

MR. McGEER: Certainly. It carries out the Premier's intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't repeat the whole thing.

MR. McGEER: It carries out your intent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question. Question.

MR. McGEER: You ask the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, don't repeat the whole…

MR. MCGEER: I gave the short answer, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why aren't you leader any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: The leader's outside on the radio.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh.

MR. McGEER: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's nice that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) listens to the radio but he doesn't listen to the debates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's better music on the radio now.

MR. McGEER: I'm sure it's more soothing to your ears, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're incredible.

MR. McGEER: But here the Premier has an opportunity to follow through on the intent of the speech he made, to prove it was sincere and not hollow simply by accepting it. What more dramatic proof could there be of the Premier's intent to follow through than to accept this opposition amendment which carries out the very intent that they expressed to us — dramatic proof of the government accepting the good sense of the opposition instead of stubbornly following the method of handling legislation that that old government followed.

You've got exactly the same legislative counsel writing the bills. But you ought to have a better way of your Ministers handling them on the floor of the House, Mr. Premier. One of these better ways is to accept sensible amendments when they are presented to you.

MR. CHABOT: A few brief words. We've been debating this amendment for almost 90 minutes now. The Minister has risen in his place on a couple of occasions and at no time has he ever given us a suggestion that this Act will be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act. He attempted to deviate from the implications of this particular Act applying to the housing Act — completely. He never gave any indication to this House that there was a possibility that there might be some move made on the part of the government to subject this housing Act to a close financial scrutiny.

Then we see the Premier come in after 90 minutes of debate and suggesting that, "Oh, yes, we will, you know, we'll make sure that it is subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act." What is he trying to do? Is he trying to bail his Minister out of his dilemma; trying to help out a weak Minister who doesn't understand his Act, who isn't willing to reveal to the public the expenditures which he has made from the allocation made by this legislature?

The Premier says, "We will make it subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act." Oh, yes, he says, "Trust us — we will." Well, it wasn't too many days ago he told Members of the official opposition, "Oh, yes, when are we going to prorogue?

[ Page 1233 ]

There's only one more bill to come." Would you believe that since he's said that there have been 12 bills introduced in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very good bills.

MR. CHABOT: We've come to realize that we can't trust him. We can't trust him and we can't trust his government. And we're not going to trust a Minister who has been so inept in the handling of his particular piece of legislation which sets up his department.

All we're asking at this time is that if you really believe in the philosophy which you've attempted to expound over the years that if you ever became government you would accept good opposition amendments, and if the Premier himself had admitted that this Act is going to be subject to the Public Bodies Financial Information Act, then why not show your faith, show your sincerity, by accepting this amendment? Because you know full well that we can't take your word. We can't trust you.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 32

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House, would you please advise the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask for leave for a recording in the Journals of the House?

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. WALLACE: I'll try not to unduly repeat some of the material that was debated under section 6, but section 9 states that "the Lieutenant-Governor in council may make such orders" as he considers are necessary. In subsection (b) he has the power of "defining words used in this Act and not herein defined."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have a real difference of opinion in this House between the two sides of the House as to whether or not the power of expropriation exists in this bill.

After the Attorney General's comments about his interpretation of the word "acquire," I took the trouble to go back to the report on expropriation of the Law Reform Commission. It is very interesting that the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Chairman, defines expropriation as the "lawful acquisition by one person of another person's property without the latter's consent."

Now, what the government doesn't seem to have understood in the debate so far is that we on this side of the House are extremely anxious about much of the human suffering that follows from the very procedure of expropriation itself.

I notice the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) was paying very close attention. He was a man in this House who, in the years I've been here, stood up in the seat now occupied by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), I think it was, and fought for the rights of individuals who might even have their homes burned down against their wishes in the process of expropriation.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who has just left the chamber also made the point heatedly yesterday. I think it is quite plain, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the cabinet who previously sat on this side of the House are well aware of the dangers inherent in expropriation. Pat Codyre could tell the House a great deal about what it is like to have bulldozers from B.C. Hydro on your land.

Here again, there is really no point in being bitterly partisan; I am just trying to present the point of view, certainly of the Conservative Party. The right of the individual to preserve ownership of land or property that he has bought is a deeply cherished right held by many, many citizens, certainly many citizens who have supported the NDP politically.

Expropriation means the compulsory transfer of property rights against the wishes of the person who happens to be minding his own business and owning his own land or property. It is a very serious issue and no bill should come before this House where there is any doubt as to whether the powers of expropriation….

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): No doubt.

[ Page 1234 ]

MR. WALLACE: The Provincial Secretary chirps up, "No doubt." Well, I am just quoting to you, Mr. Minister, section 9 (b) which gives the cabinet the powers to define words used or not used in this bill. If that isn't plain English which leaves the cabinet the power in its own wisdom to decide whether or not expropriation is in there, I don't know.

HON. MR. HALL: None so deaf as those who won't hear.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, and there are none so stupid as those who won't listen to another point of view either.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I will, I will. I think the other point that was made in this report on expropriation was that, on an urgent basis, there should be one statute of expropriation introduced which would save individuals, legislators and this House a great deal of time. Every bill which obviously does involve expropriation causes this kind of prolonged debate. The two sides of the House never seems to be able to come to any kind of understanding as to whether or not expropriation is, in fact, included in the bill.

According to the report on expropriation, we have 60 different statutes which in different ways give different corporations and different Ministers varying degrees of power to expropriate property.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Sixty. No, it says 60 in the 1971 report. If one can just go back a moment to that report, the committee of this House which met was rather short lasting. I can remember the outstanding, shattering comment of one Social Credit Minister at that time: the report was going, to give too much power to the individual to protect what he owned. Well, I don't know. We've quoted the Magna Carta already in this House earlier in this session. I think if anybody is in any doubt about the importance that society and civilization over the centuries attaches to the rights of an individual, they can't be reading or listening very well.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we've covered many of these points in debate on section 6. With that thought in mind, I would like to move that section 9 be renumbered 9 (1) and the following subsection be added as section 9, subsection (2): "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall not endow the corporations with powers of expropriation".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member has made valid points about the need for one comprehensive statute on expropriations in accordance with the thinking in that report. The work on that project should be expedited. I sympathize with that.

When you say there is a power of expropriation in this bill, it seems to me we went around that bush pretty hard at the time of Bill 42, where it said "or otherwise acquire." There was some argument — even one or two lawyers piped in there for awhile — that that implied the power to expropriate. Well, it doesn't. This report the Hon. Member (Mr. Wallace) refers to make it clear that those words do not confer the power of expropriation.

In Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, the 11th edition — that's the good edition — states here: "It is presumed where the objects of the Act do not obviously imply such an intention, that the Legislature does not desire to confiscate the property or to encroach upon the rights of persons; and it is therefore expected that if such be its intention, it will manifest it plainly, if not in expressed words, at least by clear implication and beyond reasonable doubt."

Nobody would go to court; no lawyer would really think that there was a power of expropriation in this bill. Wherever those powers are spelled out in any Act, they are spelled out very clearly, there is a separate section on it, a procedure, a code.

Really, I think we have had an interesting morning and a late afternoon yesterday on the business that this Act contains powers of expropriation. It simply doesn't.

MR. WALLACE: What's wrong with putting it in there?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no need for it.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it doesn't….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's nothing; there's no need to. When the power isn't there, we don't add superfluous words to the statutes of this province. With respect, I think we must reject the amendment, clearly stating as a government that this bill does not have powers of expropriation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you risk your seat on it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I've risked it on another matter and I might get all mixed up. (Laughter.) Everything I say now is antediluvian, so I don't want to have a whole pack of things and forget which ones I have risked my seat on.

It doesn't contain powers of expropriation, Mr. Chairman. Therefore the amendment, while the

[ Page 1235 ]

intention is fine, is unnecessary. It would be just adding unnecessary words to the statute which are really not called for.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just follow up quickly. I would just like the Attorney General to tell me, then, since section 9 (b), which gives the cabinet the power to define words used in the Act and words not used in the Act, is it not possible for the cabinet to use that power in interpreting the phraseology in section 6 providing the corporation to exercise such powers? Could these such powers not be defined by the cabinet in its wisdom, regardless of the previous example of law down through the centuries? Section 9 (b) makes it very clear to me, if I were reading it, that the cabinet, in fact, has the power to make its own definition as to what the different words mean.

If it did that, I don't see how examples of the past would make any difference. We are taking new directions in legislation every day and every month. I just, with regret, can't accept the Attorney General's explanation that there is no power to expropriate. The word is neither used nor omitted, but under 9 (b) it is quite easy for the cabinet to take the power to make its own definition of words in the Act. Section 9 (b) says: "defining words used in this Act and not herein defined;".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If regulations — that's what we are talking about here — are drafted under the Act, then as the statute does, some of the basic words may be defined. "Corporation" refers to the corporation in section 7; the "fund" is such. You could not change the meanings of the words in the Act, you could not confer through that — it would be laughable in any court — a power of expropriation that wasn't actually spelled out in the Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Attorney General confounds me. He refers to the report of expropriation of the Law Reform Commission and so far as he goes, he's right. But in this particular matter let me refer the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to what is said in the report on page 42: "There are a number of situations in which the procedure for expropriation and even a formula for compensation are not set out by statute, but may be determined by regulation."

MR. WALLACE: Repeat it. He didn't hear you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the Hon. Attorney General hear what I said? I'll repeat it: "There are a number of situations in which the procedure for expropriation and even a formula for compensation are not set out by statute, but may be determined by regulation."

The report goes on to say: "This, the commission feels, is most undesirable. The rights of a citizen on expropriation should be cast in unequivocal language in legislation which has been considered by the Legislative Assembly."

Then he goes on and says; "The statutory basis for making these regulations are…" — and goes through Act after Act after Act. You know, the Black Ball Ferries Ltd. expropriation was done just this way, under a regulatory power.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under what Act?

MR. WILLIAMS: Under the Civil Defence Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay; that's where the power was, not here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the expropriating authority was one given by regulation. And that's what we're talking about here.

Is the Hon. Attorney General listening or is he getting instruction from his counsel?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. Would you read page 29 of that report?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've read page 29. I've read the whole report. The Attorney General says it can't be done, and yet the commission in its report indicates that it has been done in the past. We don't want to see it happen again.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This isn't similar to the Civil Defence Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Attorney General consistently ignores the clear, unmistakable words in section 6 as to the extent of the powers that may be given to a corporation under this legislation. It's not restricted at all — "such powers as the Minister deems necessary." Now, Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney General going to stand in his place — maybe he will — and say that if the Minister, under this legislation, deems it necessary that his corporation have the powers of expropriation, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is not going to give them? Is that what the Hon. Attorney General is saying?

This is what the amendment is saying: that we in this Legislature wish to limit the regulatory power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by specifically saying that whatever powers you give to a corporation shall not include the powers of expropriation. What can be clearer?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, why doesn't the Hon. Member come right out and say,
"This statute contains powers of expropriation and I

[ Page 1236 ]

stake my seat on it."? You haven't even said the first; you haven't even said it does. We've been going here, you know, for about 10 or 12 hours and people say somebody might look at it this way or some way else, or somebody might have to get into a court case, but you never come right out and say, "There is the power of expropriation there." No lawyer could say that.

MR. WILLIAMS: No one has said that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now let me read page 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one has said the reverse either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. You say the reverse and all that, but you just keep dodging that main point. None of you have the fortitude to say that. Here's from the Law Reform Commission on expropriation, page 29: "The mere granting of a power to purchase or otherwise acquire land cannot be regarded as conferring a power to expropriate."

MR. SMITH: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman: in this amendment, as in the two prior amendments, I think it is important to say to the Minister that the opposition have continuously hammered one thing, and that is that the government should prove by word and deed their accountability when it comes to dealing with public and private funds and private land. That accountability is not something that the Ministers can lightly cast aside or suggest on the floor of the House that they interpret an Act this way or that way. It's an accountability that we want included in the statute for everyone to see.

When you use vague language, as has been used in this Act, which grants at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council extreme powers in the hands of a Minister, that is not an accountable position for any government or any Minister of the government to take. This amendment is proposed in the same manner as the two prior amendments, and that is to say in specific terms that there will be no expropriation procedure used in taking private lands when you desire to enact a particular development in a particular area.

You know, we've listened to the Minister, and we've listened to other Ministers come to his defence in this debate, and none of them have said anything that would change the situation or in any way alleviate the fears of people who may at some time be forced into a position of having this Act used against their own interests. Because that may be part and parcel of a land-assimilation scheme, if it hasn't already happened.

Mr. Premier added nothing to the debate with the statements that he made just a little while ago. I suggest that any one of the amendments proposed, including this one, would have done nothing to interfere or take away from the objectives that the Minister had in mind — not a thing. As a matter of fact, it would have enhanced his position and certainly given the public the feeling that the government was accountable, that they would protect the public interest. It would seem to me that any one of the amendments — and, as a matter of fact, all three of them — should have been accepted by the government if they want to play fair with the people in this province.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one final comment. The Attorney General has made the point that nobody on this side of the House has admitted that the word expropriation is not used in the bill. We admit that it isn't there. We are saying that there's an honest difference of opinion as to whether the power does or does not exist in the bill. Because of this uncertainty, the amendment is simply asking the government to remove that uncertainty by putting in a statement to the effect that powers to expropriate shall not be conferred by the cabinet.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 31

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker would you tell him that a division took place on section 9 and ask that it be recorded in the Journals?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, quite apart

[ Page 1237 ]

from the problem dealing with the lack of expropriation powers in this bill, we have here another principle which is the fact that the executive is going to take over responsibility that theoretically should be in the hands of the judiciary, namely, interpretation of words. The standard practice is for legislatures to decide what they want, the judges to interpret it and thereafter the executive to follow suit. That's the way it should be, except when there are special reasons for granting to the executive the power to interpret the words of the Act.

The standard procedure used by judges is of course the fair meaning or the fair interpretation of words — not some construction which may suit a political purpose, not some construction which may suit a certain objective of the executive but the fair and ordinary meaning of the words in question. In this section we're handing over the power, which should be in the hands of a dispassionate judiciary, to a highly politicized cabinet and a Minister who quite rightly, in his mind, has certain objectives which may not be that of the clear meaning of the words of the Act.

Under the circumstances, unless we can put some good justification for taking these powers out of the hands of the court and giving them to the Minister, I would suggest as an amendment, that we delete section 9(b) and renumber accordingly. I so move.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. McGEER: Section 16, Mr. Chairman, says "unless the context otherwise requires, 'minister' means that member of the Executive Council charged by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with the administration of this Act, and includes any person designated in writing by this minister;" et cetera. In other words what it does, Mr. Chairman, is it places the University Endowment Lands under the charge of the Minister of housing.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What's the matter?

MR. McGEER: Well, what's the matter, Mr. Member, is that the intent of the Act establishing the University Endowment Lands is not to convert it into a housing project. Indeed, a mass housing project should be the last thing that the University Endowment Lands are reserved for. Well, I'm interested, Mr. Chairman. The Premier says that's not what is going to be done with it. Perhaps we could hear from the Minister and the Premier exactly what their intentions are.

We were just going through that very quickly. The Premier gave an indication different from the intent of this section as I read it.

I just saw the Minister of housing about to get up there, Mr. Chairman, and give us some answers. I wonder if we could have an opportunity to hear from him and perhaps the Premier as to what the real intent of section 16 might be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead, Lorne.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Member would read it, it simply allows the designation of the Minister to be by order-in-council, so that if the purpose of the University Endowment Lands is to change or to be administered better under one department than another, that can be expedited.

I think what we've been hearing here from the opposition is ways and means by which the problem of housing can be held up and hung up, trying to limit the power of defining terms which might limit and hold back legislation or administration of this Act for months and months on technicalities. We've been trying to do the job with the limited legislation the previous government brought in in the Housing Act, an Act that doesn't provide for proper disposal of properties and limits to working with federal and municipal authorities. It pretty well limits a person to the scope of section 40, which is just the creation of housing for one particular low-income group. It's not in my nature but I'm just a little bit annoyed. I don't think that I'll hesitate to make that known when I go into your riding and I'm asked how you voted on this bill. I'll bring out the point that you tried to lay a trip on the municipalities; that's how ill-prepared you were. I don't know who you're getting your advice from, but he ain't voting for you in the leadership race. He's not on your side.

MR. SMITH: He's just a petulant little boy.

MRS. JORDAN: He's not even dry behind the ears.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: If there is some technicality that some statutory authority does not exist because of some particular interpretation, that will be cleared up within the purposes of the Act. But the purpose of the Act in section 4 is very clear.

As we have said, we've never proposed to put the whole endowment lands into bank-to-bank and border-to-university-border housing. But believe me, Mr. Member, there is a tremendous need for housing.

There has been perhaps the creation of a West End — well I hesitate to use terms and to reply in kind — a ghetto, a West End ghetto. You look on the map and there's a lot of parks in the east and a lot of parks in the west but in the East End of Vancouver there are high-rise apartments put up for the poor right beside

[ Page 1238 ]

the Hastings Street viaduct.

There are problems. If you were to get into some of those places and see as I have the problems that are arising, the things that are there today, the things that we've inherited because of that former government's philosophy….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't say it to knock those people, but you know, a policy that just about puts the majority of single-parent families into one area. I don't want to say anything to knock the people who are in that situation because they've responded to it very well in spite of that previous administration. They've pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They've created a food cooperative within their own organization at the Raymar project. They're responding to a very bad situation that they were placed in by that former government.

We're not going to create that kind of situation out at the University Endowment Lands. We believe that people shouldn't be forced to live in a particular lifestyle because of their particular income. I've seen darn good people wiped out by things that are no fault of their own.

You can point to families that suddenly lose their principle breadwinner, who in most cases happens to be male. We're not going to ghetto-ize these people. They have as much right to live out in the University Endowment Lands as in any other part of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you finished? I'll wait just as long as the Minister of Lands and Forests likes to keep shouting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I draw the attention of the Members to section 17, Part 2 that requires that Members do not interrupt the speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I haven't begun speaking, how can I be interrupted?

Mr. Chairman, I take it from the Minister's lengthy reply that the University Endowment Lands are to be used for housing purposes. Will he now indicate what amounts of it he intends to use for that, or what ideas he has in his head? It's great to talk about the loss of the breadwinner in a family — we sympathize with people in that position. It's great to talk about food cooperatives — we said that we appreciate people doing that. But with respect to the university lands which might well be used for park purposes, which are also used by people of limited means as well as wealthy people, which might also be used for expansion of the facilities of the university as well as for research centres such as the TRIUMF project which is there now. Will he please indicate what his ideas are in terms of the amount of land to be used?

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill complete with amendments, and further reports that divisions took place in committee on sections 7, 8 and 9, and requests that these divisions be recorded in the Journals of the House by leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 49, Department of Housing Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 49 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 14

[ Page 1239 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, motions and adjourn debates on motions: motion 10. (see appendix.)

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I guess if there is any topic that doesn't need much discussion at this point in time, it should be the problem within the fruit growing organization — among the members of that organization.

In an attempt to find an answer to some of their problems, to identify the problems at least, the government took several courses of action. One of them was to offer funds to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to conduct a study in this, among other, sections of the industry. Another was to ask the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to look into the problems of this particular part of the industry, again among other questions. The third was to commission a study for the Department of Agriculture — a study which was reported on, the report since being made available to the Members of the House and to the industry as well; it's been publicized.

One of the recommendations in that report was that there be a plebiscite in the industry. I think almost everybody in the community will agree that it is time we gave the members of that organization an opportunity to say whether or not they want to continue with that organization, whether they want to change it, or whether they want to abandon it.

I'm fairly confident in my own mind that the growers will want to continue their organization. There's a little bit of historical precedent for this sort of confidence: the Potato Marketing Board in the Province of British Columbia was first established in 1938 and at that time received a 68.8 per cent vote in favour of establishing the board. Some 15 years later, in response to the same sort of problems that we're having now in the fruit industry — questions being raised, a lot of publicity given to the questions and given to people who were fighting against the work the Potato Marketing Board was trying to do — in response to all this pressure, in 1953 there was another opportunity for the growers to vote. This time rather than getting the 68.8 per cent vote in favour, they received a 90.1 per cent vote in favour. I would like to say with confidence that this will be repeated when we have the fruit growers' plebiscite, but whether it will or not, I think it is time that we did give the growers an opportunity to vote on this question.

Secondly, a recommendation that there be a substantial reorganization of the industry itself — the details of this quite clearly included in the report. This again is a question that should be put to the growers. There were arguments that this would save growers money. There have been many attempts over the years to persuade the growers that there should be this sort of a reorganization. There has been some progress towards reorganization, but this is much more progress than has previously been thought possible.

But with conditions being as they have been in the last few years, there's reason to think that perhaps now the growers are prepared to look at this as well, look at it realistically and perhaps indicate whether or not they are ready for such a substantial reorganization.

There are many details to be looked into: the question of the voters' list, the registration, whether there will be different enumerations according to the size of the production unit, whether it will be a mail ballot, whether it will be a voting-station or a voting-place ballot. And I think we are still open on these questions; no decision has been made by the government.

At the present time we want the House to indicate whether they agree that this is the time for a plebiscite as to whether or not the organization should be continued and, secondly, should the growers be asked whether or not they want to embark on such a plan of reorganization.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move the resolution 10, filed with the Clerks.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to support this motion.

There have been crises in the agricultural industry, of course, for the past 100 years, one after another. But one of the worst crises that can come in any organization is when it has internal problems. We have seen this situation, of course; it has been well documented this year for all of us to read. There are problems in the Okanagan and there have been some serious wounds opened among the fruit growers. Neighbour has been against neighbour; there have been accusations made against each other; old friends of long standing have separated.

It is sort of like a trade union, Mr. Speaker, which is equipped for the normal battles against a normal adversary, who could be their employer, and they have a very serious problem when it comes to the internal fighting such as jurisdictional quarrels between one union and another. This is the worst type that can come in a union organization, and this is the worst kind that can come lo any agricultural organization such as the fruit growers of the Okanagan.

They have had problems in the past: problems with prices; problems with weather; problems with

[ Page 1240 ]

markets. They have been able to resolve them partially or to the general satisfaction among themselves. But the present crisis they are engaged in — and the publicity that it has received was, in many cases, more than was justified — makes it absolutely essential that this plebiscite be held so that once and for all there can be a definite showing to the public of the feeling of the growers as to whether they want to continue the present system, amend it or scrap it altogether.

There are still many growers alive in the Okanagan who can remember holding on to the tracks of railway trains while the RCMP were dragging them off. The slogan was "A cent a pound for the fruit or on the ground." There is no way that these people wish to go back to this kind of a situation.

However, the resulting publicity that has gone on is leaving the public very confused as to what the rights or wrongs of the situation are and what the majority of the growers actually want.

So for this reason I will be glad to see this plebiscite held and a very clear statement made by the growers themselves, one way or the other, on how they wish to continue their industry.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I just have one or two comments. We do support the motion. I am interested in the question that the Minister asked: is it the time for a plebiscite? I think this is a question that should be answered by the industry itself. They have made very clear on both sides of the fence, if we can call it a fence, that they do want to have a plebiscite.

Should the growers be asked? I would think again this is something that isn't a matter to be debated. It is their industry; they operate under an Act that they asked for, and there are provisions within that Act, within their own regulations, so that they can hold a plebiscite if they wish.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We oppose this motion. It is true, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) said, that the experience of the committee this summer indicated that there were some dissenting people in the tree-fruit industry in British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with a plebiscite under these circumstances is only to fan the flames of dissension that already exist in the Okanagan Valley and to further damage the tree-fruit industry by making it quite clear that neighbour is set against neighbour in a political contest to succeed in winning the plebiscite or to succeed in defeating it.

What we have is the Minister placing before this House a motion seeking the recommendations of this House to a course of action which he himself has never formally supported. He speaks of the Hudson report. You haven't acted to indicate that you support the Hudson report, and they are going to ask the people in the Okanagan Valley, by plebiscite, if they are prepared to have the Hudson report implemented.

The Minister of Agriculture has not yet clearly indicated that he accepts everything that is said in the Hudson report, yet the Hudson report is going to become the entire basis for the argument, pro and con, of any plebiscite. You are being asked to support a Minister who approaches this problem with indecision.

If there is to be a plebiscite in the tree-fruit industry, let the government first clearly indicate what plan of action it is prepared to recommend and implement. The government hasn't said that it will implement the Hudson report, which suggest extensive government financial assistance for the amalgamation of packing plants.

Is the government prepared to spend the kind of money that the Hudson report recommends in this regard? Are they prepared to take the expropriation action that will be necessary in order to force amalgamation of those packing plants? Are they prepared to destroy or override the wishes of the members of the cooperatives who own those packing plants? We're being asked to support a plebiscite, a political contest in the Okanagan Valley on this particular subject.

If we have difficulty in the tree-fruit industry today, I hate to think what it will be like during and after such a plebiscite.

It is suggested that the government expend millions of dollars necessary to improve the packing-plant organization as suggested by Mr. Hudson in his report. It is only a recommendation; no assurance. But if the government is prepared to expend that kind of money, Mr. Hudson suggests that the amalgamation of the existing packing-plant facilities and the sales organization of the tree-fruit industry could perhaps result in the saving of 1 cent a pound on fruit.

But when you look at other segments of his report, 1 cent a pound does nothing for two-thirds of the growers in the Okanagan. And this is what you are asking people to vote upon? It does nothing for those who receive no return for capital and management under the present system, and it is even worse for those who don't even recover their essential operating expenses. And yet these are all growers and these are people who are entitled to a vote in this plebiscite.

Yes, we've got hard feelings in the tree-fruit industry and, in places, hard decisions before the government to take the steps that are required to resolve those hard feelings. But, Mr. Speaker, we have today members of this industry who have been fined for breaches of the existing law and cases under appeal in the courts of this province. We have others who have been charged with breaches of the law and

[ Page 1241 ]

their cases are pending the outcome of that appeal.

In this circumstance we are to have a government admit its indecision by placing a plebiscite before the growers, many of whom are in the position of being themselves charged with offences, or friends and associates of, people who have been charged with offences. Are you going to allow them to engage in a political campaign to determine whether or not the present situation should continue, or some possible solution which the government itself has not yet acknowledged?

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House, by supporting this motion, is going to fan the flames and ill-serve the needs — and they are great needs — of the people who are in the tree-fruit industry.

The Minister is going to suggest that there will be different weighted voting rights in the tree-fruit industry. How is this going to go down with the people who have seen their life savings disappear with the rising costs over which they have no control and the operation of an industry which, in many cases, is beyond their control? A plebiscite is not going to solve this.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudson in his report makes one very significant conclusion. It is that the solution for inadequate prices for commodity can be found most often within the bounds of an individual orchard. That's a very significant finding from Mr. Hudson. He is, in effect, saying that some of the orchardists are not receiving proper economic returns for their labours because of their own fault. Are these people going to vote in the plebiscite as to whether or not there should be some change in their sales organization or packing plant system when maybe they, themselves, are the authors of their own misfortune?

Have the Members read the Hudson report? The Hudson report does speak about amalgamation of packing plants. He says, however, that the amalgamation produces critical problems of debt financing on the capital side. He says it's "a problem which defies solution in bilateral discussions among grower-members."

The distinguished economist says that the solution to the packing plant situation defies solution in bilateral discussions between the grower-members of the packing plant organizations. That means that there has to be some other, third force enter into the matter. That third force must be the government with a clear indication of what it intends to do. Yet that's not what this plebiscite will accomplish. The plebiscite will accomplish only an expression of opinion between these same member-growers who, Dr. Hudson suggests, in bilateral discussions can't resolve this problem.

I suggested just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wishes to place a proposition before the orchardists in the Okanagan for them to vote upon, that he define the scheme that he and his government are prepared to finance. Then there is a question for the growers to answer — yes or no.

We don't have the American system where we have government by plebiscite, except in very limited areas. Certainly in one where there is as much feeling as there is in the tree fruit industry it would be a mistake for us to expand even those limited instances when we deal with plebiscites.

I would like to see the situation solved in the Okanagan. It may take some difficult decisions for the orchardists themselves. They keep talking about how things are better in the State of Washington. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the agricultural committee, not yet having finished the task it embarked upon this summer, is not yet in the position to answer why things appear to be better in the State of Washington, in fact, even if they are.

There's a pretty strong indication, Mr. Speaker, that if they are better in the State of Washington, they are better because the whole grower system is different. They don't have small orchardists engaging in the business in the State of Washington. I don't know whether that's the reason. Yet we are offering a plebiscite for these people to criticize in a very positive way a sales organization which Dr. Hudson supports in his report. That's up for criticism.

We are asked to support a plebiscite as to whether or not there is majority support for the implementation of the recommendations concerning amalgamation of the packing house facilities and industry integration in the Hudson report.

When the government is prepared to tell us that it accepts this report and clearly indicates the programme it is prepared to finance under the recommendations of the Hudson report, then it is time for us to determine for the Minister whether or not we should support any plebiscite move.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Member, but I disagree. I'd give you the reasons for my disagreement. First of all I must briefly say that part of my knowledge of this industry relates to family business that was intimately involved at one time when the cooperative was first established.

Without the cooperative the industry would not have survived to this point. Yet throughout the history of that whole marketing board system, there were problems that politicians avoided like the plague. There is no standard line here of saying that it's the former government's fault. The situation has developed because of the changing nature of society.

You must understand that we, as a party, have a commitment to the small family farm unit. Hopefully, the small orchardist fits in that pattern as a way of life. I think it is an unfortunate choice of words by the Member to suggest that it will be a

[ Page 1242 ]

political contest. I know of no party, in the strictly "capital political" sense, that there has been an exchange with or that has used it — either the NDP, the Socreds, the Libs or Conservatives.

This has been an issue that has crossed all party lines and assaults have been made on many politicians because there are varying political affiliations on both sides of the dispute. There are some Liberals, some Socreds, some NDP Members and Tories who support the marketing board concept and there are some Liberals, Socreds, Tories and NDP Members who are against it.

When we go into it, as we did in the by-election — and I would hope that perhaps the Member for that area would wish to say a few remarks since it relates to his constituency — one of the things that I deliberately did was sound out the mood around what was happening in the apple industry.

I found that the same pattern that had been there before as the problem built up — that is the political breakdown of pro and con — remained the same. I wouldn't want this vote to be misinterpreted — I'm sure it wasn't the Member's intention that it be so interpretated — as a political contest.

The point will be the contest around the point of view. There will be, if the plebiscite goes ahead, a great deal of feeling around that particular point of view. There will be pressures or attempts to draw the politicians in. I hope we stay out. Most of us in this House are skilled enough to have arrived here by now. We will probably stay out.

That doesn't mean that local people who are involved in party activities of all parties won't get involved. I hope that it doesn't spill over and I don't think it will spill over into a straight…. It's impossible for it to spill over into a straight political capital plea decision.

The question raised by the Member about the Hudson report: there are two points that you made, Mr. Member, that I disagree with. One is that the Minister should state his position before the plebiscite. The very nature of farmers is the concept — it is frequently dreamed about but rarely still exists — of the rugged, free enterpriser individualist. By the very nature of that type of farmer, to be told by the Minister ahead of time what his commitment is to the Hudson report he would immediately get the response, "Well, why ask us for any opinions? If the Minister has got a hard fast opinion, we don't need any plebiscite. Let it all be done by the centralist, heavy-handed socialist government in Victoria." I am sure that's exactly the argument that would be used if the Minister did come out and say, "This is the route we are going to go."

Hudson, himself, goes into quite a socio-economic explanation of the problem when he makes the comment that he does not see a defined solution in bilateral discussions. There is no solution in bilateral discussions to this problem. Certainly, before the Minister makes any decision and before the House is asked to ratify any decision, it would be far the wiser course to ask the people involved, as much as possible, to say yes or no.

This affects a way of life and a segment of this province where politically this party has not been successful. I don't know if we will be successful in the future. But this is the first Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who has gone in and grasped the problem with both hands and said to the House committee, "Help us" — and is now telling the people involved in the problem, to 'fess up because you have the spectacle of emotionalism and court cases around defiance of law, and none of us want to see farmers prosecuted for differences of opinion.

I don't believe the law was ever intended to get us into that kind of situation, but it has.

When the Minister and a Member from the committee came to me with this plebiscite proposal the discussion centered around the points you raise. My reaction was, "Yes, those points will be raised." But if we don't go in and ask the people locally then the converse is worse. We will be attacked as a Legislature for not having consulted with the people first.

In the final analysis it is my opinion Hudson is correct. The Minister will have to make some decisions and that's when prayers come in. Along with the prayers he'd also better get a darned good idea of what the majority of those farmers want.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How do we know it's wrong, and the Minister is going to need the advice of Hudson and many others. No one is infallible.

The Minister may make mistakes, but we had better not avoid making decisions on this problem too much longer or the prediction made by one of the Members that there will be violence unfortunately may become a fact. We've been close to it twice in two instances, and these problems get escalated as stories rebound through the industry.

I don't envy the Minister his problems, but it is my opinion that in a situation like this you must go in and ask the people concerned: "Which way do you want to go?" Having expressed that, the Minister takes together the Hudson report, their expression and the responsibility that he has in law with the designated authority as Minister of Agriculture, and makes some decisions — hopefully to solve the problem.

This is not the kind of problem that will disappear with benign neglect. If it were I would welcome that. But we must, if we are to be a responsible government and, I say without partisan meaning, a responsible Legislature, have a response so that the

[ Page 1243 ]

Minister has all the best possible human guidance at his hands.

The debate's gone on for years but we've reached the point in terms of costs and returns where we have to be making some decisions about government's role vis-à-vis the continuance of an industry, even if it needs government subsidies, because it's a way of life that perhaps a community now has an understanding and may need to be subsidized so that alternate lifestyles can develop.

The solutions offered by Washington state I know are very attractive. Certainly in my father's part of the industry that was attractive; that kept costs down. But there were no human beings involved, and that was a tragic loss to Washington state. Again our Minister would have to find out how we can keep the people involved.

I appreciate the sincerity with which the Member has made the remark, but I disagree with his conclusions and I have a difference of opinion. I think the only course we have left at this stage of the game is to go in, put these questions to the people involved, look at the hard answers that come out and then make some decisions with the advice of the committee, with the Hudson report, with the prayers that we get and with the Minister, and hope for the best. If we stall, we're only going to increase the problems, in my opinion.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I was holding back in case the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) wished to speak on this matter.

There's no question, as far as I can see in the tree fruits industry, that at some point in time such a plebiscite should be put, but I was surprised to find the motion on the order paper at this particular session, when so many questions are still unanswered, questions which will not be answered by the plebiscite which is proposed in this motion. I think the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has very eloquently identified some of the difficulties which will occur if a plebiscite of this nature is rushed through.

So let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I don't speak in opposition to the idea of a plebiscite in the tree fruits industry, but I suggest that a plebiscite in the very early future might well do some harm and possibly would do no good at all.

What happens as an example, Mr. Speaker, if it's a close answer? It could very well be a 52-48 per cent answer either way. We may feel that it's going to be decisive in one particular way, but that's not necessarily so.

We're really in suspended animation at the moment. The agriculture committee has not yet completed its study of the industry. A very important part of that study has yet to be undertaken with respect to looking at the situation in Washington state, not years ago but in 1973 or 1974; that's extremely important, I think. The Hudson Report has been received in this House and that's about all, with the exception, obviously, of the Minister and his staff giving it careful consideration, but it has not been reviewed by the committee; it hasn't been debated in any way, shape or form, other than in the last few minutes.

I would be much happier with this motion if it had been introduced in the spring 1974 session where we will have some other answers which would fit into the total jigsaw puzzle rather than moving ahead with it now. One can only assume, if the motion carries, that the Minister will proceed with the motion at the earliest opportunity. It's not a bad idea in summary, Mr. Speaker, but it comes at the wrong time.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I could just speak briefly in response to some of the remarks from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). When he suggested a cent a pound as nothing, well, it's true that a cent a pound on top of nothing perhaps would be nothing. We're not talking about the net returns though; we're talking about the gross returns when we say a cent a pound, which in some cases would mean a 25 per cent increase in the gross returns for a grower. It still may not be enough to give him a reasonable return, but a 25 per cent return on gross returns is something. If it can be saved through an amalgamation programme it's well worth considering.

It will help everybody who has any sales. It may not help them enough, Mr. Speaker, but it will help everybody to get a 20-25 per cent increase in their gross returns. I'm not saying that's the whole answer. Things have to be done beyond that.

He suggests that we should not move as long as there are legal questions pending. That is an argument, Mr. Speaker. There are legal questions pending right now that may directly affect a few score, perhaps even eventually a couple of hundred growers. But if we wait, the number of legal questions pending is likely to escalate rather than decrease.

All the time that we wait the problems are building up. The pressures on the existing organization are building up the pressure's on them to do something to take note of what others in or close to the organization are doing. So it is my fear that the legal questions and the flames that are now burning in the organization are going to burn higher and the legal questions will increase rather than decrease the longer we wait.

I think, if anything, we have waited too long already. The time has come or is perhaps even long

[ Page 1244 ]

gone for some opportunity for the growers as a whole to say how they feel about the flames that are being fanned within the organization, about the legal questions, about people being taken to court, about fines being levied.

So far as weighting the voting rights, I didn't say that we would weight the voting rights, what I did suggest is that we might like to have some record as to how the various-sized farms voted in groups, not individuals at all. This may or may not be of interest later on but, for example, we might like to know whether the commercial-sized farms are voting in one way as opposed to those who are just sitting on an acre of land perhaps. Something like that.

MR. WILLIAMS: One man, one vote?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Again this is the question. The only records we have so far for each of these farms is that the person who was shipping to a packing-house or other people who are not shipping — I don't know if there is anybody who isn't shipping at all — but the records right now are based on packing-house shipping records. Now this is an enumeration that's currently available and is being up-dated. It's regularly up-dated.

The plebiscite may not resolve all the questions, but that's no reason for not asking the questions at this time. Sometimes we have elections of another sort and sometimes they don't resolve the questions; but just because we think they may not resolve all the questions is not reason enough for not asking the questions in the first place. As I said, the flames that are now burning point out the reason for asking those questions at this time.

We could, as the Member suggested, answer these questions ourselves. Instead of asking the growers what they think about these problems, what they think about their organization, we could say, "Well, this is exactly what we're going to do. You can take it or leave it." Well, they couldn't leave it; they would have to take it. Maybe they aren't going to give us the right answers. Sometimes in provincial elections people don't give the right answers.

Sometimes people go left, and that's better. But we have to give them an opportunity to vote. It's their right to vote. They vote on other things; they have the right to vote on their future. And that's what we're asking them to vote on in this case. It may be wrong. Often advice is wrong. But I think in this instance, we're bound to give the members of that organization the right to vote.

The results may be close. If they are close, Mr. Speaker, we're no further behind than we were if we hadn't asked them at all, and at least we know the organization is fairly evenly split on this question — at least we will have some knowledge. The results may be close. I hope not; I think not.

Personally, I believe in the single-desk selling agency that exists. I believe it could be doing more for the members of its organization than it has done. I believe it hasn't done so because they have been afraid. They've been operating on such small margins they have been afraid to take chances and to take opportunities that might be available. They've been afraid because they've had to go back to their organization annually and report their stewardship of what they've done.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of timing, they are going to have to go back to that organization very soon — their annual meeting is coming up in January. In the face of all that has happened in that industry over the years, and particularly in the past few months, for the executives of those organizations to go to their members in January of 1974 and say that "things have done nothing but get worse in the past year — we don't know what we want, we don't know where we're going to go, we don't know how we're going to do it, and we don't know whether or not we're going to have any cooperation from the government, and here we are in the meeting" — now that would be an impossible situation. As a government, we don't know, until we give that organization and the members of it an opportunity to tell us, whether or not they are willing to work with us.

They're going to have an opportunity to endorse the organization that they set up so many years ago, or they're going to have an opportunity to tell us that they want something new. If the House votes for this resolution, we will give them that opportunity in time that we'll know the answer before they face their annual meeting in January of 1974. 1 move the question now be put.

Motion approved on the following division:

NAYS — 5

YEAS — 39

[ Page 1245 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to motion 26 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that under standing orders, private Member's motions on the order paper must be taken in order as they appear on the order paper. That would require leave of the whole House, that is, unanimous leave or consent to depart from that standing order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I draw to your attention the fact that in previous sessions of this Legislative Assembly, the Members of the then opposition have moved motions to move to certain motions standing on the order paper.

Specifically I would draw your attention to the Journals February 24, 1971, page 79.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I know the one to which you refer.

MR. SMITH: I'll quote from the records of the House. On this particular day, Wednesday, February 24, 1971, the House proceeded to the order, motions and adjourned debates on motions, which we did do this afternoon, just a short time ago, when the Premier called motion 10. On that particular day, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Barrett, was able to get the eye of the Speaker and he moved that the House proceed to motion 7. "A debate arose; the motion was negatived." He then moved that the House proceed to motion 10. "A debate arose; motion negatived." "On the motion of Mr. Barrett that the House proceed to motion 11," the same thing happened. We did at that time proceed to debate on motion 14.

So it would seem that there is ample precedent, not only in 1971. But if the Speaker would like, there are precedents that are set up in other Journals of the House in different years when exactly the same motion was put by a Member of the then opposition and the motion was accepted by the Speaker, and the debate arose — at least a division arose — on a number of occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: The situation that you refer to does not constitute a ruling of the House. What it simply means was that no exception was taken to the motion. The point of the matter is that under our rules and standing orders, private Member's motions must be taken in order. It says so right in the standing orders. Therefore, it follows that if the House were in agreement with you, that motion 26 should be taken up and no exception were taken to it, we probably could do it.

But it is a matter of getting the leave, unanimously, of the House to depart from standing orders. In view of that, I would suggest the Hon. Member ask for leave of the House to suspend standing orders to take up motion 26.

MR. SMITH: I disagree with your interpretation of the rule, but I ask for leave to proceed to motion 26 on the order paper.

Leave not granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

Bill 114 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.

AN HON. MEMBER: One-more-bill Barrett.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1: 51 p.m.

[ Page 1246 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 1239:

Be it Resolved, That this House endorse the principle of holding a Government supervised plebiscite among tree-fruit growers who are presently subject to orders issued by the British Columbia Fruit Board under the British Columbia Tree Fruit Marketing Scheme (1960) (being regulations under the Natural Products Marketing Act) to determine whether or not there is majority support of growers for

(1) continuation of central authority and one-desk selling as provided by the Scheme;

(2) implementation of the recommendations concerning amalgamation of Interior tree-fruit packing-house facilities and industry integration as recommended in the Hudson Economic Study of the British Columbia Tree Fruit Industry, 1973.