[ Page 2665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce estimates.

On vote 125.

Mr. Chabot — 2665

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2666

Mr. Phillips — 2668

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2672

Administration of Justice Act (Bill 2).

Report and third reading — 2674

Occupiers Liability Act (Bill 4).

Report and third reading — 2674

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6).

Report and third reading — 2674

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. McGeer — 2674

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2675

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2676

Mr. Cummings — 2677

Mr. Phillips — 2677

Mr. Lockstead — 2678

Mr. Gardom — 2678

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2678

Mr. Wallace — 2680

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2680

Report stage — 2680

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 9). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Fraser — 2680

Report and third reading — 2680

United Family Court Act (Bill 49). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2680

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2680

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2681

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2681

Mr. Curtis — 2681

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2681

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2681

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2682

Mr. Curtis — 2682

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2682

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2682

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

On section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2683

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

On section 10.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2683

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2683

Report stage — 2683

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2684

Mr. Gardom — 2684

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2684

Mrs. Jordan — 2685

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2686

Mrs. Jordan — 2686

Amendment to section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2687

Division on amendment to section 1 — 2687

Appendix — 2688

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills

Orders of the day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND COMMERCE
(continued)

On vote 125: Minister's office, $75,976.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, it seems like we started on this estimate some considerable time ago.

However, from the time the government first presented this particular vote in the Legislature, we've had a little journey on the part of the Premier of this province and on the part of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). It was a very intriguing little sojourn off into the Far East; and there were tid-bits of news coming here. We saw some of the action that was visible to the TV cameras but we didn't see all of the action that actually took place in Japan — if you might call it action.

I'm a little disturbed with the fact that we didn't get the score of the last rugby game. I was wondering, really: did British Columbia win that game or did they lose it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are dealing with vote 125.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier wasn't busy at this time he'd tell me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the Minister of Industrial Development's estimates that are up.

MR. CHABOT: Well, maybe he can nod his head yes or no. Who won the last game?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We won it.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, thank you very much. You see, it was settled very quickly. That's the last game you'll ever win.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I know that the Minister is extremely anxious to get on with that northern trip — that propaganda trip into the northern part of British Columbia to quiet down the natives, as they might call it. That's why the Minister is waiting to get his estimates; and I'm not one who will delay his estimates very long. But I think he has the responsibility to tell us of some of the results of that great trip into economic diplomacy.

Now the Minister went over there with the intention of attracting a steel industry to British Columbia — or, at least, attracting some of the financial resources, some of the dollars, from Japan in a joint participation in a steel mill in this province.

I must report, in view of the fact that the government and the Minister have failed to report it at this present time, that that particular episode into research of attracting a steel industry was a dismal failure on the part of the government — absolute dismal failure.

Here the Premier and the Minister had set their sights and goals upon attracting an industry, because we know full well that the government had gone into Europe and into England the year before without success. There was a tremendous anxiety on the part of the government to prove its ability to establish secondary industry in British Columbia and to prove its ability to attract financial investment in the province from Japan. We know they're not interested in financial investment from Hong Kong. But in that respect it was a failure.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it will be a failure for ever after. I think the Japanese are sufficiently wise in the field of economics to understand that there is a great anxiety on the part of the government to establish this industry in the province. Consequently, they have seen fit to delay the matter a little bit longer so that the government and the Minister will be a little hungrier for this industry, and consequently they will be able to sign a contract that is extremely beneficial to the country of Japan.

It frightens me the kind of contract that you might, or might not in fact, sign at a later date with the Japanese to establish a steel industry in this province.

I'm wondering if the Minister pointed out to the Japanese when he was there just the kind of ore reserves that we have in British Columbia. I think he can report back to us just what he told the Japanese about the ore reserves we have in this province — the kind of delineated ore reserves that will sustain the kind of mill that you have talked about — a mill in the neighborhood of 2 million tons per year, which is a very substantial mill. And if you don't have the ore reserves, I'm sure you told them where it was possible to secure iron ore to keep these blast furnaces operating in British Columbia.

I'm certainly sorry that you weren't able to negotiate a contract with the Japanese. However, at a

[ Page 2666 ]

later date you might negotiate one which might not be as beneficial to this province as it might have been had you been able to sign a contract at this time.

That's quite obvious, because the Japanese are able to distinguish and to come to the conclusion that there is a great anxiety on the part of this government to secure a steel mill. They will come again. I'm sure they'll come again with a contract. I want to read the contract very carefully, Mr. Minister.

Now while you were away we managed to proceed through the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) with some difficulty. There were some rash statements on the part of the Minister as well, which I'm not about to repeat or allude to. But I do want to say that in questioning the Minister I suggested to him that I had asked you a few questions during the first episode of your salary vote and that you had indicated to me that you were going to Japan to negotiate the possibility of securing additional markets for our coal.

I suggested to the Minister of Mines, in discussing his estimates, that there appeared to be a lack of communication in the cabinet. He said that that wasn't one of the reasons you were going to Japan. But very clearly, I recall — and I'm sure you will too — you did suggest that you'd go to Japan to discuss the business of securing further markets for our coking coal.

The Minister of Mines said that that's not one of the reasons, because they're hammering on our door for coal at this time; and how could the Minister of Industrial Development possibly be in Japan attempting to secure additional markets when these people are trying to knock our door down?

But I'm sure, Mr. Minister, you will report as to what success you had in your negotiations in an attempt to secure additional markets for our coal, because in episode one of your salary vote I did point out the fact that the Japanese are looking up to Siberia as a means of securing something in the neighbourhood of 12 million tons of coal annually from that area.

Now the Minister shakes his head. I hope that if they're not looking to Siberia they'll look to British Columbia, because we have coal in abundance. I'm wondering if the Minister will be able to tell us just what the future is of markets for coal in Japan.

Maybe this is an opportunity.... We did have a very brief discussion on the question of securing steel for British Columbia for the construction industry in our province. The Minister indicated that there was an extreme shortage and that he would secure from Japan something in the neighbourhood of 150,000 tons of steel for construction in this province.

He didn't give us an indication this afternoon. Maybe he's had an opportunity to discuss it with that group which is either still in Japan or on its way back from Japan. Could he tell us when the 150,000 tons he referred to this afternoon will be available to the British Columbia construction industry? Could he tell us what the price is, what the price will be of this steel?

Can he tell us what kind of consumption there is for steel in British Columbia at the present time. He has, as he's pointed out on numerous occasions, a very sophisticated research group within his department; at least, they're sophisticated if you look at the salaries.

I'm wondering if the Minister could tell us just what volumes of steel are consumed in British Columbia today, what the projections are for consumption in the future, what kind of shortages really exist in British Columbia, and what kind of dent this 150,000 tons will make on the shortage we have in this province.

He was extremely vague this afternoon, and it is most unusual for that Minister to be vague. Generally he's very specific in what he says. But this afternoon it appeared that it had been a waste of time — his efforts in negotiating the possibility of securing steel for the construction industry in our province.

I'll have a few more questions later, Mr. Minister. I've asked you three very short, brief, concise questions and I'd like the Minister to answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It's astonishing, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has not responded to those questions from the Member for Columbia River. I wonder whether he heard. Normally he's there and we often hear him, Mr. Chairman, in debate. We often hear him when it's not his turn to speak...he's squeaking away over there. There are times when we have had to ask for a cushion for him so that he can be seen as well as heard. Now he's totally silent. Why?

Well, I've got a few questions, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a question which I asked earlier dealing with steel and steel contracts. The Minister talked about an agreement, and I believe he gave the date of April 26 that this agreement was signed — an agreement which was to give us three different types of steel that he mentioned, at least, and probably more types — 150,000 tons, perhaps more. He indicated perhaps more.

He said nothing about price. He said nothing about delivery dates. He said nothing about whether this was tied in any way to any other agreements. And all these questions are as valid at 8:50 p.m. as they were at 2:10 p.m.

I wonder why the agreement on steel has not been tabled, because we appreciated the Minister's trip to Japan. We read with great interest his voyage to the mountains at Lake Chuzenji to try and find out how you put together a mariculture programme at 4,000 feet above sea level. We were fascinated by this

[ Page 2667 ]

information about sea farming at 4,000 feet. We were very interested in his trip to Japan and the one thing that he came back with....

I see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) laughing away there because he certainly avoided any criticism by pleading innocence to any knowledge of the subject. He was very smart. But back to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce....

What precisely are the terms of the agreement with the Japanese on steel? We haven't had them yet. We've had a statement by the Minister which was tantalizingly brief and tantalizingly imprecise. But if British Columbia industry is to be spared this shortage of steel, we'd like to know a few more details. I'm sure it was just jet-lag and fatigue which led him to give a statement which was so incomplete. Now that he's had a chance to rest a little, perhaps he'll be able to give us more details.

He talked about a 22 per cent increase in Japanese shipments. Twenty-two per cent up over what? There was no reference to the base, the 100 per cent base. Now that's a pretty interesting figure and I think we should have it, because 22 per cent increases on top of nothing work out to nothing. Twenty-two per cent increases on a fixed figure are important, and perhaps precision could once more be requested in this area as well.

I'd like to switch to another subject at the present time and that is the....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, the Member for Vancouver — Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) seems to want the floor, Mr. Chairman. I'd be willing to allow him to have it if he'd like to get to his feet and make a speech. I don't know, would he like to?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Well, he can perhaps speak later if he doesn't want to speak now.

I'd like to switch to another subject. We had comments from the Minister — and, of course, from the Minister of Finance and Premier as well — dealing with both smelters and an iron mill for the Province of British Columbia and steel. I'd like to know what steel mill they had in mind, what the processes are, what they discussed with the Japanese companies involved and how close they came. I think that a statement, a report to the Legislature, a report to the people's representatives, on the trip and the interesting discussions that he had would certainly be in order, because I'm sure this Minister has much of interest to tell.

I would like to know in particular the cost studies that have been done with reference to the proposed steel mill. I'd like to know in particular what environmental studies have been done with respect to the proposed steel mill.

On the first subject I'll simply say, as I said when the Minister was not in the House earlier last week, that some countries have had great difficulty with the so-called clean mini-mill. New Zealand was the example I gave. I cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of the figures involved, but I understand that they were able to produce steel economically in only three different types of steel. Of the other 161 types of steel that New Zealand used apparently the cost factors were bad, or at least not good.

The mini-mill that they acquired resulted in a great financial drain for that country. Indeed, they tried to sell it to the Australian steel people, and they failed. They tried to sell it to the Japanese, and I understand that finally they tried virtually to give it away, and again they failed.

I don't know whether our situation is similar to that of New Zealand, but I would like to know what economic studies have been done, Mr. Minister, to indicate that this is viable, and where it would be viable on the B.C. coast so that we're not stuck as were the New Zealanders with their mini-mill.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Minister, I point out that the discussions I had with Hugh Keenleyside, who's been involved in the development of underdeveloped countries through the United Nations — where he was, I believe, the senior Canadian civil servant of the United Nations — indicated that one of the great problems they had with underdeveloped countries was their desire for prestige steel mills which were not economically viable.

Country after country would finally work out some deal with a donor country and/or a supplying country for a steel mill, and the result was an economic unit which was a tremendous drain in many instances upon the normal economy of the country involved.

Dr. Keenleyside, I must quickly point out, made no reference whatsoever to British Columbia or to Canada in these discussions. He talked only in very general terms about his experience over more than a quarter of a century as one of the top people at the United Nations, whose job it was to oversee — I shouldn't use the word "oversee," perhaps, but to advise — on economic development of many countries.

In this area the United Nations had a great deal of trouble because of the general belief that a steel mill was somehow, ipso facto, good, and that economic studies need not be taken prior to its establishment — that if it came it would bring benefits and that the

[ Page 2668 ]

benefits would outweigh any economic disadvantages.

The result was, of course, that many countries were saddled with mills which were not economically viable. I mentioned the example of New Zealand, a country which perhaps is similar in some respects to us here in British Columbia. I wonder whether the Minister would comment on this.

I might add as an aside that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) listened most intently when I put this comment forward to him during his estimates; and I think that in his replies he indicated that he was certainly aware of the problem. I wonder whether the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is as well.

After all, it appeared that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources was bypassed in this Japanese trip and in the negotiations, and that's a curious thing. I wonder whether or not this Minister has the information and has done the studies which would be required before any representative of the people of British Columbia who took their responsibility seriously could possibly approve of a steel mill in any part of the province at all — in other words, the proper economic studies.

The Minister, I'm sure, will tell us that there are economic advantages. But please tell us what studies you're basing it on, and let us have more information than simply one man's opinion.

The same is true of the environmental aspects that I mentioned. The environmental aspects, well, they simply cannot continue to be ignored as they've been ignored in the past. I'd like to know what studies have been done in terms of site selection, in terms of the process that you envisage and in terms of the size of plant that you envisage for the protection of our British Columbia environment.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

There's little value in getting some marginal benefit from a steel mill, which may be marginal, and in turn damaging the northern British Columbia salmon harvest. That's an example. It may not be applicable, but it's the type of thing which I am concerned about and about which I trust the Minister during these estimates will have something to say.

All these comments, Mr. Chairman, could well be made of a smelter as well — a copper smelter. I believe that a copper smelter perhaps is more economically viable than a steel mill. I don't know; I'm guessing on the basis of inadequate information.

But surely if the Minister and the Premier and Minister of Finance discussed with the Japanese in practical, realistic terms the establishment of a smelter in British Columbia — and I don't know whether they did and to what degree they did — surely there have been economic studies and environmental studies done, and now is the time to make them public to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

I wonder whether you could perhaps comment: the steel supply deal first, the terms of it; secondly, the question of a steel mill and, thirdly, the question of a smelter.

Fourth, I wonder whether the Minister would indicate, perhaps advised by his Deputy who is with him, of the departmental purchase of a half-million-dollar property at Kaien Island up in northern B.C. near Prince Rupert. I understand it's not a bad purchase in terms of purchase price. I think it's the Kilbrunner estate; I'm not sure of the name exactly, but the Minister might well be able to correct me if the name is wrong.

Now I'm not an expert in this area in terms of land values, but I understand that it's been a half-million-dollar purchase. I would like to know whether or not the department purchased this directly from the estate or whether there was some intervening purchaser, and whether you in turn purchased it from the person or persons who originally purchased it from the estate.

Perhaps the Minister at the same time, being a Minister who believes in open government, would tell us the price which this property was purchased for.

Mr. Chairman, those are four points, all of which I think are worthy of some comment from the Minister. Like the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), I will now sit down and let him reply, and perhaps I'll have a few more questions later.

MR. D.M PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it is amazing how silent this Minister can be. Not only does he not do anything, but he doesn't say anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or know anything.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): You haven't given him a chance!

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I remember standing in this Legislature a year ago last spring when the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act was being passed, which gave the government the power to invest in industries in this province. The Members on this side of the House were against this Act because we felt that money should be loaned to industry in British Columbia, and we felt we should not allow the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) the power to be a partner in industry.

At the time this Act was passing through the Legislature, the Premier, stood in his place and reprimanded both the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself for voting against this

[ Page 2669 ]

legislative measure because, as he said at that time, it would retard development in the Peace River area. That legislative measure, Mr. Chairman, put in the hands of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce $25 million to assist secondary industry in this province. That was well over 12 months ago, and not one single, solitary penny has that Minister invested or spent or loaned to assist secondary industry in this province. That's well over 12 months ago, Mr. Chairman, and yet this legislative measure was very urgent when it was passing through this House.

The purpose of the corporation was to create, develop and increase income employment, tax revenue and other economic benefits to the province by encouraging and assisting in the establishment, expansion and continued operation of industrial enterprises in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister full well knows that for my area alone there are several proposals that have been sent to that Minister. When the Minister was approached to make a decision as to whether money would be available to assist these industries, the Minister replied: "Well, you know, Mr. Member, this department has been neglected for the past 20 years, and what do you expect us to do in a short nine-month period?" And yet in that same nine-month period his racehorse cohort Minister, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), established the British Columbia insurance industry, hired over 600 people, and spent upwards of $20 million of money.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister thinks he's preparing a case for court.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is going to prepare all the facts and wait for somebody else to make the decision, and I think he is ill-equipped for his job.

MR. CHABOT: We want Calder.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being fair, but that Minister is not being fair, and he should resign because in over 12 months not one single cent of this urgent legislative measure that was passed through this House over 12 months ago, not one single solitary cent has been spent.

MR. CHABOT: Give Calder the job.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it takes, Mr. Chairman, this Minister 12 months to make some decisions and hire some people to get his department organized, how long is it going to take him to make decisions with regard to whether he should invest in or loan money to specific industries?

British Columbia was the last province to sign up with Ottawa on the DREE programme. You know, Mr. Chairman, this Minister must have a tremendously difficult time at cabinet meetings. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is trying to slow and stop the mining industry in British Columbia, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is bent on a course of taking over the forest industry, development money is fleeing from British Columbia, and yet this Minister says he wants to develop industry.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister owes some explanation to this House as to where this department is going and exactly what he intends to do. You talk about northern development. What does he intend to do? Where do you intend to go in northern development?

MR. CHABOT: We want Calder. He'll do the job.

MR. PHILLIPS: This department is like the Department of Housing — lots of talk but no action. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, this Minister goes to cabinet by himself and sits there all by himself in a dream world. But his dreams are not being brought into action.

The Minister goes off on a long, extended tour of Japan, looking for airy-fairy glamorous industries when he has the opportunity right on his desk, and I will bet there are at least 100 proposals on the Minister's desk to assist small secondary industries in this province.

Mr. Chairman, not one single solitary decision is emanating from the mind of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. He told us originally when his estimates came to the floor of this House that he was expanding his Vancouver office, hiring more people, moving his office from here to uptown Victoria. He's going to go into the industrial land banking. There again he's like the Minister of Housing — he wants to become a big landlord in British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): With somebody else's money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, with somebody else's money — some of the money that we voted to him to assist industrial development in this province. It's like all of the other great promises of this great people's, small people's government — lots of promises but no action. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of making a decision, they're stuck. And I'll tell you why they're stuck, Mr. Chairman, There isn't one

[ Page 2670 ]

single solitary Minister on that side of the House that has the business ability to make a single solitary decision.

I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, I'm just wondering when that Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is going to hire a commission like all of the....

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Sit down!

MR. PHILLIPS: I won't sit down! Don't you tell me to sit down, Mrs. Madam Minister of Consumer Services!

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Sit down!

MR. PHILLIPS: When is that Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce going to hire a commission to go out and make some decisions for him? Mr. Chairman, he's not capable of making any decisions. More promises, no action.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, all of the small industries and small businessmen who had new ideas, who were hopeful of getting some assistance from this Minister today, have lost all that hope. They have lost all that faith. I want to tell you further they are disenchanted with that socialist government too, just like all the other industries in the province.

Maybe he'll come along some day and find some small industries he can buy out and take over. That's what that government is all about — buy out, take over. They haven't started one, single, solitary thing, but they sure know how to take over, buy out, cripple, weaken and then move in with the thrust and take over.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there are lots of chirpers; over there. All they know how to do is chirp. But there sure aren't any solid decisions coming out of that side of the House.

Here is the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) saying he wants a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia. Is he working through the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce? Have you passed those proposals, Mr. Minister of Mines, that have been placed on your desk by private industry in this province to establish a copper mine in this province? Have you passed those on to the Minister of Industrial Development? If you have, they'll join the other proposals. They must be filed in file 13.

You can hardly pick up a paper and not find some segment of industry in British Columbia waiting, retrenching, stalling because this government has created an air of uncertainty. That Minister will need more than $25 million to replace the investment capital that the policies of his government have driven out of the province. This province requires approximately $4 billion of investment capital every year to sustain its growth and provide jobs for its population. If the policies of this government continue at the present rate, that government is going to have to come up with the entire $4 billion because it won't be coming from the private sector. It won't be the risk capital from the private sector. I wonder where the Minister of Industrial Development is going to get $4 billion.

Here is an article from The Province of April 10, dateline Toronto. "Drills Silent in B.C."

"Recent energy problems have sharply stimulated activities in the drilling industry, especially for uranium and coal, an industry spokesman said.

"William Mundle, president of the Canadian Diamond Drilling Association, told a meeting of about 50 drilling contractors here that the industry is fast recovering from a slump in 1972 and 1973.

" 'We estimate the mineral exploration surface drilling is up about 23 per cent across Canada during the last eight to 10 months and should show an increase of up to 40 per cent in 1974,' he said in an interview at the start of a three-day convention.

" 'British Columbia is the only exception to the bright outlook in the drilling industry...."

Why is British Columbia the only exception to the bright outlook in the drilling industry?

"'The mining industry in B.C. is so concerned about the province's mineral royalty tax that exploration work is drying up,' he said."

What is the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce doing about that? Does he ever go to cabinet meetings? Does he ever sit down with his other Ministers? I wonder if he ever talks to them. The article continues:

" 'The B.C. mining industry is in a state of flux,' he said. 'Grass roots exploration is virtually extinct and the major companies are concentrating on work on properties already in the process of development.'

"Mundle noted, however, that coal exploration has increased in western Canada and uranium exploration is thriving in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

" 'Coal drilling work in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains is being concentrated on the Alberta side, mainly because of the B.C. government's decision to raise the metallurgical coal royalty to $1 from 25 cents a ton,' he

[ Page 2671 ]

said."

Mr. Chairman, this Minister's portfolio should be the nerve centre of meetings in the cabinet. If he is going to change the name of his department from "Industrial Development" to "Economic Expansion," that economic expansion must include the Department of Mines, the department of forestry and the Department of Agriculture, our three main industries in British Columbia.

How can that Minister look those other Ministers in the eye? How can he, out of one side of his mouth, talk about economic expansion while the other Ministers are talking about retrenchment?

We just went through the estimates of the Minister of Mines, another Minister who wants retrenchment.

How does he look at the Minister of Industrial Development when the Minister of Industrial Development is for economic expansion? I'll tell you how, Mr. Chairman. Because economic expansion in the hands of that Minister is strictly a cliché not meant for action — just a cliché, to bring in all the hopefuls to the province to tell them about the industries they would like to start. He will digest the proposals and, when the people who are the authors of the proposals, who have the energy, and the ideas, fade away out of discouragement, maybe then the Minister of Industrial Development will march in with the usual policy and take over.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he sure hasn't any ideas of his own. If he has, they are all circulating around in his brain, waiting for a decision to come out. And yet, while we talk about retrenchment and no action, off goes the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to Japan.

What for? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what for. When decisions are waiting here in British Columbia to be made, why the sojourn to Japan at the taxpayers' expense? — the very taxpayers who are waiting here in British Columbia for some decisions from this Minister. Did he go to Japan to clear his brain so he can make some decisions? Why did he really go to Japan?

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think he fooled the Members on this side of the Legislature and I don't think he fooled the people of British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I would have loved to have been a mouse on the plane coming back from Japan. Here is the Premier and the Minister of Industrial Development saying, "My gracious, we really didn't do much in Japan. What are we going to tell the people? How are we going to justify our trip?"

There they were, as the airplane winged its way over the Pacific, scratching their heads and saying, "We're pretty near to British Columbia. I'm going to have to face the people when I get off that plane. What are we going to tell the people? We can't tell the people about visiting all of the great industrial plants because we're against private enterprise. We are against it."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): What garbage.

MR. PHILLIPS: "We don't want to tell the people about the fish hatcheries because we've got fish hatcheries in British Columbia that are bigger and better than Japan. We don't need to go to Japan to see fish hatcheries."

I can just imagine the great Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, being the brains of the outfit, preparing a case. He's going to meet the jury when he steps off the plane; he's going to meet the jury. The jury are the people of this great province. There are going to be reporters there, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier says, "We're pretty near to British Columbia," and he starts to panic. "What are we going to tell the great people of British Columbia? Why did we go to Japan? Well," the Premier says, "I can't tell them I just took you along to carry my rugby outfit. No, because we had a whole group of people to do that...."

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Haw, haw, haw.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, haw, haw. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, yes, there they are in that great jet; closer and closer they get to British Columbia. They have been gone two weeks. "What did we really accomplish while we were there?" the Premier says to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. "Really, what did we accomplish?"

Here he can see before him the lights and the TV cameras and the reporters saying: "What did you accomplish in Japan?"

MR. WALLACE: They toured a couple of islands.

MR. PHILLIPS: They did a lot of touring. Yes, and they were royally entertained. What did you call it? — the mission of economic diplomacy. Finally the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce says: "We'll tell them we got some steel." We'll tell them we got some steel.

He landed in Vancouver and he ran to the closest telephone and he phoned back to Japan and he said, "Say, I forgot — I want to ask you; we need some steel over here for our construction industry." And the guy says, "Oh, you're the people we entertained a short time ago. Oh, yes, we will see you get your steel."

It could all have been done by a phone call, Mr. Chairman. Every single bit of it could have been done

[ Page 2672 ]

by a phone call. We've got the coal; they've got the steel. They need us; we need them. What else was accomplished?

Did the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce go to Hong Kong with the Premier to find out that Hong Kong money is coming into the housing industry here? I don't know. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is going to put the $25 million we gave him last spring into apartment buildings. The silent, do-nothing Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce!

Mr. Chairman, do you realize that not one single solitary decision has emanated from this Minister since he took his portfolio? Not one single solitary decision in over 10 months! I sure wouldn't want him handling my case. No sir! I'd rot in jail before I ever got to trial.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to build us a steam bath.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I want to tell you that when you really think about what this Minister has done, when you take and look at it in perspective, Mr. Chairman, what do you come up with? You come up with one big fat zero — but lots of talk.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What is this talk?

AN HON. MEMBER: While he was in Japan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is awaiting the word from the Great White Father — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. CHABOT: He's a one-boss man.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I, myself, and a lot of the people on this side of the House were prepared to wait and give this Minister an opportunity to do something. I, myself, and all of the other Members on this side of the House, and indeed most of the people in British Columbia tonight, are disillusioned and discouraged with this Minister. We come out with a great announcement, Mr. Chairman, that we have signed a DREE programme. We've signed a DREE programme; we're going to develop here in the Province of British Columbia.

I just finished doing a study. I got a complete portfolio of this today. What, Mr. Chairman, does this DREE programme really mean? What does it really mean to the Province of British Columbia until the detailed agreements are signed?

I would like the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to tell me here in the Legislature this evening just what benefits can emanate to the province of British Columbia from the signing of this agreement. Mr. Chairman, how long is it going to be before the detailed agreements are signed? Who is holding them up? These are the questions that we want answered here this evening. And we want them answered, as far as I am concerned, before the Minister gets his salary.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): All I need are 54 more votes. The Member for Columbia River always supports me deep down in his heart. I know that.

I have a file here of letters. Reading through these letters I have at least made one decision that directly concerns the Member for South Peace River, because some of the letters are from him. That decision is that for a businessman he has the poorest business judgment I have ever seen. He sent letters in support of proposals from his riding that he has written obviously without even taking a cursory glance at the proposals that he was supporting to my department.

Would the Hon. Member like me to be specific? Would you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Be my guest.

MR. P.L. McGEER: You made a charge. Support it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Shall I? For the sake of the various individuals involved, the Hon. Member knows the names of these various support programmes.

There was the all-terrain vehicle. Do you remember that one, Mr. Member? Do you remember your letter in support of that? "I completely support the proposal." There is the pre-fab home. On every one of those cases I sent the Hon. Member letters back indicating that feasibility and technical studies were being undertaken to see if they were economically viable and whether the engineering was indeed correct.

One or two of the answers by the applicants have been received. On the others they have been forwarded to the development corporation board which is acting independently and which will make its own decision about assistance. You will be notified in due course of whether the board has decided in favour or not.

Some of these proposals, I believe, are good ones. But the way the letters from the Hon. Member read would indicate to me that he didn't know why they were good or not. It was just a question of jotting down a few lines. It is easier for him; he is a Member of the opposition. He hasn't got the responsibility for the taxpayers' money in this province.

[ Page 2673 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Support your charges against him. He hasn't done that yet.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. LAUK: I think it is clear that just because a Member for a particular riding wants some pet proposals to come through, he gets miffed. It is his judgment that is in question. That is the point of the exercise.

Now with respect to the other questions: the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked some precise questions over a much shorter period of time than the Hon. Member for South Peace River. I indicated that the agreement with respect to the supply of steel was 22 per cent. The Japanese producers would provide 22 per cent over and above that steel they were providing to British Columbia users in the 1973 period. That is, all of them, It is useful to point out that steel in this province comes 75 per cent from Japanese producers. The total amount we have not finally calculated. I would be estimating. The total production used in British Columbia — and I am just estimating because we haven't got the final figures....

Interjection.

HON. MR, LAUK: Yes, 22 per cent relates to what is available from Japan. Now the amount used in this province is approximately 300,000 or 400,000 tons, and 75 per cent of that is of Japanese source.

The precise details are what the department is now compiling, contacting the various users, to try to validate whether or not they are going to be stockpiling and whether or not this is a real shortage for that particular user. Overall we know, of course, that the shortage exists; so we don't expect too many problems. The delivery dates will be the usual three-month delivery from the time of the order to processing to arrival in British Columbia.

From central Canadian sources the price that you questioned me on relates to price before rail shipment, in my estimation. The price is cheaper before rail shipment, but there are several other factors involved — not much cheaper, by the way, but cheaper. It doesn't matter what the cost of the steel is if you don't get it.

It reminds me of the story of the gentleman who went into a store and wanted to buy a teapot. He said, "How much for that teapot in the window?" The proprietor said, "$10." He said, "Well, I can get that same teapot down the street for $5." He replied, "Well, go down the street." He said, "But that fellow is out of them." And the proprietor said, "Well, if I was out of them you could have it for $5 too."

HON. MR. COCKE: It's $3.50 now.

HON. MR. LAUK: Or less. Now, the situation is simply this: the steel is not available from central Canada and it is available from Japan.

You questioned me about steel production. We went over there with a view to discussing steel production within this province and substantial progress has been made with respect to negotiations with the Japanese steel producers. Announcements in that respect will be made in due course and before any establishment of steel production in this province we will undertake thorough studies into the environment and site location and processing size that will be required.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you look for some ore?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think you heard what I said: site location, environment, processing size.

In addition you asked about economic studies. They have been carried out for the last several months. It is, in our view, economically viable — indeed, desirable and essential that steel production exist.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: No, they are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

HON. MR. LAUK: Because they relate directly to the negotiations still being carried on.

The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a few points. He's worried about contracts. He's worried about the kind of contract this government may sign with the Japanese. I wonder where he was, and did he worry about the contract with the Japanese with respect to the Kaiser coal resources? Where was he when the Columbia River Treaty was signed, or the Skagit Valley Treaty? Where was he when they were shipping copper concentrates out of this province over many, many years with no money back to the Province of British Columbia whatsoever? Of course he wasn't around when there was the Wenner-Gren proposal. Was he around then?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I can assure you, Mr. Member, that we will not sign contracts like those. Never.

MR. CHABOT: You'll be skinned.

HON. MR. LAUK: He was mentioning that I sit in cabinet dreaming. I wonder if he is still dreaming

[ Page 2674 ]

about the monorail going through the north. It was going to be built by Wenner-Gren.

He mentioned coking coal. Insofar as coking coal is concerned, Mr. Chairman, and the source from Siberia, it is a little way down the road, the railroad. They had to build a 4,000-mile railroad to a coal deposit and they are not quite sure where it is yet, in Siberia. Yes. And it is something like eight or nine million tons that they expect to be able to get out of there. But it was clear to us that the Japanese are still very much interested in our coking coal, and will be for some time. I, of course, reported that to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) who knew full well the discussions that were going on.

Now, there was a question of a copper smelter being raised. The committee that has been set up is a joint committee between myself and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. We think it is a good committee that will provide us with enough information to make a policy decision with respect to the establishment of a copper smelter in this province.

Another question was raised about Prince Rupert and certain land negotiations there. I will say that land negotiations are going on in the Prince Rupert area. The final arrangements have not been made and I don't wish to get into details at this stage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it is such an interesting thing to see all the Liberals here at once we thought we should give them a chance to go on legislation.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Shall I get a photographer?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we get a photographer here to get a picture of this? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Bennett's) chair — just like his dad — the empty chair.

MR. CHABOT: Just like Williams — he hasn't been here all session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's out chopping trees.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are they printed? I think you will find them on page 23 of orders of the day.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT

Bill 2 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT

Bill 4 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

Bill 6 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974.

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which provides for the stripping off of hundreds of millions — not hundreds of millions but well over $100 million worth of public money, just like that. It is the end result of false budgeting. It takes away from the elected Members of the Legislature their right to debate by vote the expenditure of funds. We see it all tossed into a weird section such as this one.

We don't know, for example: in section 1(a) how that $40 million will be spent; in section 1(b) how the $10 million more will be spent; in section 1(c) how the $5 million more will be spent there and so on through sections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) — $5 million to $35 million at a crack pulled out from the scrutiny of the elected Members of the Legislature in favour of the Minister of Finance. It's bad budgeting; it's bad government leadership and I'm against this section.

[ Page 2675 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think sometimes opposition Members have to define for themselves whether or not they just want to be against everything, or that they've got some rationale behind their arguments. The Member states that the money is spent almost, in effect, willy-nilly by the government.

Section (a) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (b) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (c) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (d) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (e) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (f) is controlled by an Act of this House. Section (g) is controlled by an Act of this House.

Section (h) — $35 million dollars of the people's money which that Member alleges is being ripped off, or words to that effect, is to build ferries that are long overdue to serve the people of Vancouver Island and the mainland. The Member talks about false budgeting, yet that Member is one of the many who said that under this government the economy would suffer, that incomes or revenues would be down under the socialists.

MR. McGEER: I never said that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, Mr. Member, we heard your scare speeches all over this province saying that the socialists couldn't administer anything.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down now, Mr. Member, sit down. You'll get an answer; you'll get a chance

MR. McGEER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have a point of order. I've got the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to get you mad now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neither are you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's his point of order? You haven't got a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier alleged that I said the revenues in the province would go down....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order. Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order!

MR. McGEER: Check the record now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that is not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: I would just like to have truth in government....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, come on!

MR. McGEER: Members are obliged to stand up and quote the record whenever another Member has made a false accusation about statements made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will both Members sit down, please?

MR. McGEER: We've got to have some truth from Members in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was not a point of order. Will the Minister of Finance continue, please?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, will you ask the Member to abide by the rules of this House? That Member finds it very difficult not only to attend, but when he does, to abide by the rules. I think it doesn't serve any useful purpose for the Member to abuse the Chair.

Mr. Member, I find the typical Liberal arrogance in somehow trying to avoid their own responsibility in making decisions in this House as to whether or not they support the expenditure of funds for these projects outlined in this bill.

The former administration did find itself in a surplus budgeting situation and set a pattern for the expenditure of those surplus' budgets under Acts that we will continue to spend under because we are not in the syndrome of wreck everything, vote against everything, destroy everything simply because you've got an ideological hang-up, Mr. Chairman.

There are good things in this system and there are bad things.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the moaning and all the groaning will not wipe out the fact that that Member wants to go on record as being against $40 million added to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act under an Act of this House passed by this House —

[ Page 2676 ]

every single bill governing these funds.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the Liberals want to separate themselves. We will just have to tell people exactly where they stand: they are against $40 million for the home acquisition Act; they are against the recreational facilities; they are against the cultural fund; they are against the sports fund; they are against the farina income fund, farm products fund, school tax removal, ferries; they are against it all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Motherhood!

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are simply against anything that they cannot do themselves. They are little spoiled boys who just can't have their way. Oh! What a naughty thing it was that the socialists got elected over Social Credit. Those two groups had power in B.C. In the way of the Liberals, and they still haven't understood that the old-line parties, including the Liberals, have been rejected in this province for over 30 years and will be rejected even more.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): It is obvious that Barrett-san is still suffering from jet-lag. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Time shock.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think he is suffering from future shock, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman. He stands up and he makes the same speech in defence of this kind of legislation as was made by his predecessor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he's proud of it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's proud of it — proud of this kind of fiscal manoeuvering. He says, "Well, you know, they are all covered by Acts of the Legislature." Well, of course the expenditure is covered by Acts of the Legislature.

If you look at that distinguished piece of legislation under the control of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Farm Income Assurance Act, which is referred to in subsection (e) of section 1— a beautiful piece of legislation we passed last year, four sections long — it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who by regulation is going to administer this fund. It is not spelled out in the legislation as to how the fund is going to be administered.

The fallacy of what the Hon. Premier has said is clearly demonstrated when we find that in the Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1971 we are to provide $10 million for the farm income assurance plan — $10 million.

Every Member of this House and every citizen of the province who has taken the trouble to read newspapers, and certainly every farmer in British Columbia, recognizes that the Minister of Agriculture has already committed more than that to just one segment of the agricultural community. Just one segment of the agricultural industry is using up more than this legislation is providing for the farm income assurance fund.

Then we have that other distinguished piece of legislation which was brought forward by this government, which everyone read with applause, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act. That is controlled by some mysterious committee apparently under the control of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). But, Mr. Chairman, what do we begin to hear from the community? Serious questions as to the way in which these funds are being administered. Last week in a boardroom on this floor, representatives from the community of Sechelt came down to find out why, when they had been assured that they were getting funds under this particular piece of legislation, they were suddenly being denied.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who's their MLA?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Particularly when they were told the reason they weren't getting funds was because the MLA from the area didn't approve the project. The MLA didn't approve the project!

I wonder how many opposition MLAs have been called upon by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to indicate their approval or rejection of any of these community recreational resource fund applications. Not one time.

Have any of the opposition Members been asked to approve or reject any of these programmes?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Not one time.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): No, not me.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister of Health seems to take exception to what I say. But I'll tell you that the citizens in Sechelt didn't take exception to what I say. The fact of the matter is that the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) made it known that he didn't approve their application and that is why they didn't get their grant. That is why they were turned down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, if the Hon. Member wishes to deny that then I hope he will stand in his place and do so. We will be only too happy to

[ Page 2677 ]

produce the people from Sechelt who were told this by the executive assistant to the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie on a point of order.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, the allegation being made on the floor of this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would advise the Hon. Member that is not a point of order. If you dispute any statements made you can do it after that Member is finished speaking. Those are the rules of the House.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Apparently the Hon. Member has an executive assistant who does all of his political work in the constituency. He goes around and he vets all of these little projects and then he gives his seal of approval. This is the way the Legislature, through its legislation, is supposed to control this worthwhile fund.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It so happens that one of the municipalities in my constituency made application. They were turned down once. I'm sorry, it wasn't turned down; it was postponed once. Then they complied with all of the additional requirements and were postponed again. All the while, the costs of the community recreational project which was proposed are rising to the extent that it may just be that, even if the government decides to give them the grant, the other available funds will be insufficient for the purpose.

This is why we oppose this kind of revenue surplus appropriation legislation: it places in the hands of cabinet Ministers and committees appointed by those cabinet Ministers the power to select whether or not any particular group or groups in our community are going to receive benefits or not, without any obligation to account and without any obligation to disclose the reason for either the allowance of an application or for the rejection.

If the Minister of Finance believes that opposition to this legislation is opposition to the very worthwhile purposes spelled out by him when he introduced it, then he's wrong. The opposition is merely to the method in which these tens of millions of dollars are placed under the control of individuals who are not accountable on the floor of this House. There is no way of making them account on the floor of this House for the decisions they make in respect of the recommendation for this kind of expenditure.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): After hearing the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I'm thinking of the great Liberal steal. It's called the Canadian mint in Ottawa.

The part that is bothering me very much is section (d): $5 million, physical fitness. I stand here guilty; I have no physical fitness. Last year I was finding that poor people who needed help couldn't get any help. In poor areas, they needed help for baseball teams, lacrosse teams, hockey teams, and there was no proper place for them to get funds because most of this money was being funded directly to the top of the organization, such as directly to the B.C. Lacrosse Association. It didn't get down to the ordinary people.

I don't want it to be carried on in this manner as the Social Credit did because the Social Credit always handled it very badly. I just hope you remind the directors who handle this money to remember that this is for people, poor people especially — little people.

To me, the way the Social Credit handled it was sort of like watering the leaves instead of the roots of the youth of British Columbia. I would rather see the water go directly on the roots.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance a couple of questions. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has stated that there would be revisions and amendments to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. Here we are voting, under section (1)(a), $40 million to be added by the Minister to the fund referred to in section 7 of the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if changes to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, as referred to by the Minister of Housing, are going to preclude loans under this Act to housing on other than provincial leased land. We should be advised by the Minister of Housing or by the Minister of Finance what changes are going to be made to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act before we....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I realize that, but what are the changes going to be? Here we're voting on an Act to give $40 million to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and the Minister of Housing says he's going to change the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. What are the changes going to be? Maybe this bill should be set aside until we see what the changes in the Act are going to be. Maybe there are going to be changes made in this Provincial Home Acquisition Act that would not allow certain people or certain types of homes to receive grants under this Act. I would like to know before we....

[ Page 2678 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this is quite true. Sometimes they put the cart before the horse and sometimes they put the horse behind the cart.

MRS. JORDAN: They put it on backwards.

MR. PHILLIPS: They've already appointed a rentals man, which is in defiance of this Legislature, before the Act even comes up for second reading.

Here we are with the same type of deal. We should be told what the amendments to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act are going to be before we okay this $40 million which, in view of statements made by the Minister of Housing and by the Minister of Finance and by various other Ministers on that government side of the House about housing and the development of housing and keeping foreign capital out of the housing field, really could only be a mere drop — not in the bucket but in the barrel. If we are not going to have risk capital coming into the province to provide much-needed housing to alleviate the housing crisis we have in this province, this $40 million, as I say, wouldn't be a drop in the bucket but a mere drop in the barrel.

So maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance would advise the House what legislation is coming in to change the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Obviously I support all sections of this Act, but there are two articles of this Act of vital concern to my constituency, particularly the matter regarding improved ferry service and transportation services to my constituency. It has been a matter of deep concern over many years.

It is unfortunate that the former government decided not to improve ferry services since 1970 in my riding. I think it is absolutely vital that the people in my constituency demand improved ferry services. This government has the foresight to spend money and build ferries, and I think it is extremely vital to my constituency.

The other item, Mr. Chairman, that is of great interest in my area is the $10 million to be added by the Minister to the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. Very nearly every community in my constituency has now, either in the planning stage or in progress, recreation facilities.

In the area of Sechelt the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) has approved the grant to that particular facility, providing they meet certain sections of the Act which will be added to their lease so the facility will be open to the public. Providing the recreation association and the municipal council meet these requests by the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Department of Recreation and Conservation, there is almost no question that the moneys will be granted. I thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, we heard a bit earlier tonight the Hon. Premier with the same old fog, his arms waving and his nostrils flaring, talking the same old silly, simplistic and complete and utter nonsense to the approach that has been taken by this party.

This party is not opposed to the projects that this bill provides and never, ever has been. But it is completely opposed to the preposterous methods that this government is utilizing. If these funds are required for the Provincial Home Acquisition Act for community recreational facilities, for the British Columbia Cultural Fund, for the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund, for the Farm Income Assurance Act, for the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, for school tax removal and resource grants — whatever that thing is going to possibly end up being — for ferry capital expenditures, B.C. Medical Centre — well, that's fine and dandy. Let's hear what the precise reasons are. Let's have the cost projections. Certainly, let's have public accountability.

Public money should at all time be subject to the closest scrutiny that government can provide and with definite fairness and freeness of approach to all members of society and all Members of this assembly.

It was rather shocking to hear the remarks — that were uttered by my colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — which certainly appears to be a non-patronage or ultra-patronage approach, depending upon the point of view, of one of the socialist Members.

I cannot for the life of me see why, when they are proposing to have under this new government an open government, they are following the fund system. It is far better if the dollars are required — and maybe more dollars are required — that we have the reasons for it. Let's vote upon it, and let that all be a subject of the estimates and subject to debate in this House, which these funds are not.

The Premier is shaking his head. But he knows as well as I do that they can be subject to abuse. I'm not saying they have been, but they can be subject to abuse. I think it is most unwise in a contemporary democracy, if we are that today — and that remains to be tested, I suppose, come the next election — to find that we are voting an enormous amount of money — $140 million — without precise reasons, precise estimates, precise projections, and without any accountability whatsoever.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate the caveat; I think that is the word lawyers use. I think that is close to what you lawyers use; that is, you watch your back. You weren't accusing anybody

[ Page 2679 ]

of any wrongdoings and I appreciate that. I just didn't like the use of the words by your colleague, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

The accountability is there, of course, in public accounts. It is there in the legislation. And the practice of the previous administration in terms of surpluses was to put it into special fund.

I think that when you anticipate revenue and your revenue exceeds what you have anticipated, and then to be attacked because you have underestimated your revenue on an honest basis.... Considering the atmosphere that was created deliberately by the Social Credit Party and the Liberal Party and the Conservatives that doom and gloom was here under socialism, despite that atmosphere that was deliberately created by those people, the province went on to its greatest year ever.

We want to put these funds back to the ordinary people of this province. But no matter what you do, as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, you're condemned anyway. I notice that there is a quiet silence of approval from the official opposition, certainly from the Leader of the Opposition. His silence is magnificent these days. I know they support it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't intend to attack him while he is here or while he is absent. I'm just making a casual observation. He is the only one who has found a method to keep quiet in the opposition. Nonetheless, he is able to show some self-control by divorcing himself entirely from his group, which is, perhaps, the smartest move he has made since he became leader. I wouldn't want to be associated with that group myself. So, I suppose, the absence is a pattern.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now that we are able to interpret that silence that is presently welling itself up into another level of noise, look at the Tories. The Tories also recognize that it was the people of this province who provided this magnificent sum of money. It's the government's intention to spend the money.

MR. GARDOM: Who has not said that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The kind of paternalism exhibited by your colleague, the other Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tonight (Mr. McGeer), when he makes his silly statement and then runs off somewhere...that's kind of galling. I appreciate your defining and separating yourself from that Member's remark by deliberately saying that you're not accusing anyone of playing around with money. You don't agree with the method.

MR. GARDOM: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, now that's an honest difference of opinion. We have a surplus. We're channeling it this way. There is a pattern of channeling it. Under the former government there was no hanky-panky that we could find in terms of those funds. Certainly the question of philosophy was different, but there was no hanky-panky in the accounting system. We've checked all that out.

Why should we throw out the baby with the bath water? If we inherited something from a former administration that is administratively functional, surely to goodness it is not the responsibility of the government to throw over everything! If we are defeated, surely to goodness, whoever came in would continue it — just like the free-enterprisers took over B.C. Hydro.

To be fair, the proper thing to do would have been to give it back to the shareholders and then take it over the right way. But we didn't do that. That's the same way in terms of reality; what you find is functional administratively, and that's what we find, and that's the method we choose. So that's what it really boils down to.

Now in terms of the specifies, certainly we have to make decisions about the specifics. Item H(i) for example, is a matter that was raised frequently by your colleague, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — the need for extended medical services. And what a wonderful thing it is!

Quite frankly, what a wonderful thing it is to be in a position to be wealthy enough to say we have surplus funds. By the passage of this Act we are going to put in a fund of $10 million to establish a British Columbia medical fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can still do it without a fund.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, all you are talking about is a niggling disagreement about approach, and that is really a matter of opinion. We think this approach has worked successfully before in British Columbia, aside from our difference in philosophy with the former administration. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, okay, we are aware of that. If we wish to change it, we will come to the House and amend the Act. That's where the responsibility is. So I have no hesitation in presenting

[ Page 2680 ]

this approach. The money belongs to the people; it is going back to the people. And that's really what it is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Just in case the Premier should misunderstand silence as being total and complete consent, I think the Conservative Party certainly does support the very worthwhile concepts in section 1.

The attitude described by the Liberals, I think, has some merit but, in trying to bring a constructive and positive approach to this House, it is very obvious that the value of section 1 and the causes to which the money is dedicated far outweigh any reservations that we in this party might have about the method being used by the government.

One could nit-pick because I notice there is $35 million for ferries, and we already know at this point in time that we need at least $40 million. But I don't think that is the kind of criticism or comment that really helps very much. As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, it just wastes more time. He's hoping that I'll sit down, and I think I should.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): The amendment that is here in my name I don't think is necessary in view of the commitment we've had in the last couple of days from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). I don't intend to move it.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

UNITED FAMILY COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a short comment. For years I have called in this House and outside this House for a totally new concept for the administration of all facets of family law, hopefully under one roof and, as much as possible, to have a departure from the adversarial procedure — which has always been so characterized by fright and combat — to an inquiry and a remedial and a counselling system that I hope would stress sympathetic informality.

I don't think this bill has gone as far as it should but I would like to wish it the greatest of success. I commend the Attorney-General and commend all of those people in the legal profession and in the family-service interest in the Province of B.C. who I know have contributed a great deal to its worth. I think it's innovative legislation and I think we're going to have to be patient with it in practice and in procedure. I wish it every success.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if I may add a somewhat non-detached view of the legislation, I share the expressed hope with the Member for Point

[ Page 2681 ]

Grey. Legislation never really solves human problems; but if this legislation can create a more flexible and more understanding atmosphere with which we can provide services, then it will be a major step forward.

I still cling to the personal view that if society demands from the state an obligation to involve people in counselling during or proceeding a divorce hearing, I still would like to see some discussion, perhaps in this House, of pioneering a bill that I've yet to convince my own colleagues of. It has been treated with some humour.

MR. GARDOM: Put it in a private bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, that would be most welcome. The concept is that counselling is important before marriage takes place. I know that has been treated with some humour and some attempts to interpret the state as interfering too much. But, quite frankly, if the state presumes to interfere, as it does through this bill, surely it has an obligation to extend that service prior to that marriage taking place.

But, nevertheless, this is a good bill. It is true, as the Member said, that many people in the community were involved in submitting suggestions and ideas and years of experience, not only from pastoral backgrounds but from social service and legal benefit to those people who unfortunately may need the services of the Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: While we're all enjoying the opportunity of going back into second reading (Laughter), I too would like to join with the Hon. Premier in the comments he has just made and hope to encourage his colleagues, and in particular the Hon. Attorney-General, in taking a step which I think will, if anything, reverse the one questionable feature of this particular legislation.

I say this, Mr. Chairman, without infringing on your rules. If you recognize in section 1, we're still talking about courts, being the Provincial Court of British Columbia, and judges, being a judge of the court. Just let me as the Premier makes a plea for some pre-marriage counselling facilities, make a plea to the Attorney-General for people who find themselves in need of this kind of service. When are we going to take a true, positive step to end the adversary system in the attempt to resolve family problems?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this legislation just doesn't do it, and that's the only real criticism I have. I know it's a step forward; it's an improvement with respect to some of the details of the existing legislation. But it has not grasped the opportunity of breaking away from the adversary system which only tends to make more difficult the resolutions of those personal matters that involve husband and wives and their children when they come before the family court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate what has been said. But would point out that the bill is quite revolutionary in this respect. In later sections it enables the court to send somebody out, receive a report, investigate something and use its family counselors with a view to settling things before there's ever a need for the parties involved, whether they be husband and wife who are having a spat or children in need of protection, to crossing the threshold of the court.

So we're really going a long way away from the adversary system in that attempt at preventive family and juvenile protection law and in the attempt to settle things without coming into the court atmosphere. We bring those things to the judge and the court only that really have to come there when attempts at conciliation have failed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that the Attorney-General has closed debate in principle, shall section 1 pass? (Laughter.)

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I rise very briefly to say that we feel this is one of the better pieces of legislation which has found its way through the maze of government. We do support it.

I have a couple of questions on some of the other sections as they come along. It does appear to be a move in the right direction. I say that as a layman. Those individuals who are reviewing legislation for us have indicated they also feel this is a good step and deserving of our support.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I am not opposing the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate the rationale of the provision I wonder if the Attorney-General, if he would direct himself to subsection and subparagraph b of that particular section, would explain to me or anybody else how an agreement could be enforceable against a child in any event, because the child must be the beneficiary of that agreement. It seems to me those words create a conflict. If the agreement is for the benefit of the child, then I don't see how it can

[ Page 2682 ]

ever be enforceable against that child. Yet the words would lead one to that conclusion.

There is also another problem with section 2. It provides means of having an agreement between husband and wife enforced. But before the agreement can be enforced, there has to be a consent given by the parties in a particular form. Yet the section is intended to be applicable with regard to agreements entered into before this legislation is passed. I just fail to recognize how you could possibly have an agreement executed a year ago enforced under this legislation when this legislation provided a specific form of consent which the parties obviously couldn't have known was in existence at the time they made the agreement. The chances of enforcing such a prior agreement, I suggest, are less than zero. Perhaps the Attorney-General might clear my mind on these matters.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In answer to the first point. It's true that a child may be disposed of by a separation agreement and evidence of his consent would be of no effect because he's under age. Therefore we say "except a child" in the section. But this might be a custody thing or something of that kind. That's why the agreement and the order of the court in a sense is binding upon a child even though there's no point in asking for the consent of the child with respect to the evidence because of the age factor. That's the way it is; these things do affect children.

In regard to the second point, agreements entered into before might deal with custody or maintenance. I would think that the Supreme Court of B.C., in any case, will look at a separation agreement, certainly in custody cases and even in maintenance cases, and be prepared to vary them.

This is an attempt to give to the provincial court in this experimental jurisdiction what the supreme court had and no more than the supreme court had with respect to variation of agreements.

MR. CURTIS: To the Attorney-General: in section 2(1)(a), the custody of "maintenance for," what in this context does maintenance include? I have the feeling that it is difficult to define and therefore could be unenforceable. It's a very loose word in this particular application.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It means an amount awarded — in this case in the separation agreement — or, as it may be converted into an order of the court, so much a month for the support of the child, payable on such and such a date and up to the age of such and such. That's what "maintenance" means in this particular section.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't wish to go over the matters that I've dealt with before. I'm afraid the Attorney-General has missed my point, but I'm not going to belabour it because it's obvious that it's not going to be changed.

If I could direct him to section 2(3), it says: "An order under subsection (1) respecting the enforcement of a provision in a written agreement may at any time be altered, varied or rescinded." Mr. Attorney-General, if you look at subsection (1), there is no provision there for any order at all.

The only reason I raise this is that if we're going to do something significant with this Unified Family Court Act, we can't have legislation which is going to be either meaningless or subject to attack. Subsection (3) talks about an order made under subsection (1), and there is no provision under subsection (1) to make any order at all.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there is. If you take a collective agreement — I'm talking like a labour lawyer; I mean a separation agreement — into court, the family court can then make an order of the court under section 2(l)(b). It becomes an order of the court and then in the usual way the court can vary or rescind its own order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman, I will take exception to the Attorney-General on that. section 2(l)(b) says nothing about an order at all. All it deals with is one aspect of a maintenance agreement — "a provision respecting...the maintenance of a person...." All the section says is that if there is an agreement between the parties then you can go to the court and it can be enforced as if it were an order made under section 25.

When you get down to subsection (3) it says: "An order under subsection (1)" — and, Mr. Attorney-General, there is no authority on the part of anybody to make any order under subsection (1). It's just the fact that the language is drawn in that way; and you're going to have it tested by some smart, highly paid lawyer in the family court and your legislation is going to be useless.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're getting into a legal argument here, but I think that when the first part says that the agreement may be enforced in the family court, to do that the court would make an order, and that's the order referred to in section 2(3).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, it's an order under 25, then, not under this section.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

[ Page 2683 ]

On section 4.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name on page 20 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to move the amendment on the order paper to section 6.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the Attorney- General that he direct himself to the first line in section 6(4). Perhaps the committee might agree, if the Attorney-General does, when I suggest that the words which read "Notwithstanding that the question was not referred to the Judge of the Provincial Court...." should read "a Judge." Taken into conjunction with the earlier sections, I think there appears to be an inclusive rather than an exclusive definition. I just think that changing the article from "the" to "a" would make sense. Perhaps the committee would agree.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree, and I ask leave of the committee to make that change without notice — that is, to change "the" to "a" in the first line of section 6(4).

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing on page 20 of the order paper to section 9, dealing with family counselors. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When we were discussing the matter of the adversary system as applicable to these particular problems, the Attorney-General made reference to the fact that the court could appoint people to make certain investigations and so on to ensure that the parties could be aided in arriving at a settlement before becoming adversaries. It's because of section 10 that I took the particular exception that I did.

If the Attorney-General would take note, he would recognize that the right of the court to appoint someone who is a family counsellor or a social worker to investigate a party to a family matter is only initiated when there is an application to a judge by a party to a dispute or an application to their lawyer. This is why I'm concerned about the approach that this legislation is taking. Before we even get to the opportunity to use this kind of facility the parties are already obliged to go to a judge in a courtroom, with lawyers and so on, and they're already involved in the adversary system.

What I'm asking for when I talk about a break away from the traditional approach to the resolution of these problems I think is something completely different. While I appreciate that what we have is an improvement over the existing state of affairs, it doesn't really break the parties away from becoming involved with lawyers and judges and courtrooms and all the people who accompany the administration of justice. When they get into that situation they're pretty well bound into a quarrel, whether they want to get out of it or not. I just think that we need an entirely new approach. I urge the Attorney-General to consider that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I always appreciate it when my learned friend goes beyond what we're doing here, because I think we may very well go beyond, and perhaps we should. This is experimental and it should be subject to review and monitoring.

I would point out that I think that section 10 takes care of the case where one person makes a complaint to the court. Then, without a court proceeding, this process can be embarked upon. Also, in section 9(2)(b), again the family counsellor can also go out and meet with the people without the necessity for any court proceeding at all. So we're moving a long way in that direction and we'll continue to watch that point.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2684 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Unified Family Court Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper to section 1. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. GARDOM: I might observe that this is another measure that initiated at this doorstep and as a matter of fact it came within a whisker of becoming law in the fall mini-session in 1972.

But I do differ, Mr. Chairman, with the mandatory power that is given here, limited though it is, for the courts to award interest in all cases save and except the couple of items deleted under section 2. The court has the mandatory power here to order interest as it deems appropriate, the only limitation being an interest rate less than that provided under the Canada Interest Act for judgments. But it does have to order some interest.

I would very much like to hear from the Attorney-General as to reasons for this mandatory power as opposed to a discretionary power. Where there has been an exceptionally difficult and unfair plaintiff who may well have a technically correct position and from that point of view his cause of action may be excellent but he still may be on very poor moral or equitable grounds, I think it most unfortunate, under those circumstances, that the defendant should, in all cases, be saddled with interest.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, where there is an obtuse and difficult point of law or interpretation involved we find a judgment that in many cases is ordered by the court reluctantly against a defendant. In many cases we find the court reaching a reluctant decision in favour of a plaintiff by criticizing legislation that is on the books, saying that it is up to forums other than itself to bring in remedial action.

I think there is no question of doubt that if a defendant is guilty of improper delay in not earlier paying a plaintiff and depriving a plaintiff of the use of his money or damages that may be claimed, then certainly the defendant should face the penalty of an interest assessment at such rate as the court would consider proper. But, surely to goodness, that should be discretionary from the point of view of the court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we are following the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.

MR. GARDOM: I know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't answer your question, I know. We are not making it retroactive to apply to any recent libel cases where judgment may have been rendered.

That doesn't answer your question. What does answer your question is that the theory of the bill is that at a certain point the judge has to make his decision. He decides that as of a certain date when the cause of action arose, A owed B X amount of dollars. Therefore A was holding X amount of dollars that belonged to B in effect, for that time. So some interest should be awarded.

I recognize that the discretionary thing is another way to approach the subject. We've chosen this way and we say that the plaintiff who has been unfair or dilatory can be mulct in costs. We think that in this case interest should follow as a matter of right with the rate to be set by the court.

MR. GARDOM: If that was your intention, Mr. Attorney-General, perhaps you should have included a condition in the bill to indicate that fact. We don't see in the bill the plaintiff being mulct in costs to offset an interest charge that you have made mandatory.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's part of the loss.

MR. GARDOM: If you will study the report that I'm sure you've looked at from the Law Reform Commission you will find that in other areas, and in other jurisdictions the discretionary approach has been utilized and has worked very favourably.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the same problem and to respond to what the Hon. Attorney-General has just said.

There is no question that in actions or contracts, debts, and those of similar pecuniary import the

[ Page 2685 ]

Judge in fact finds that as of a certain date, when the cause of action arose, party A owed party B so much money. It is only just that that money should be paid with interest.

But then there are pecuniary awards that flow from matters other than contractor debt, as the Attorney-General well knows. I'm thinking particularly of damage awards for personal injuries, real or imagined, as in the case of libel or slander as the Hon. Attorney-General has pointed out. It seems to me that in cases of that kind that the judge should be given a discretionary power as to whether or not, in order to provide a just remedy, it is appropriate that the successful plaintiff — and it could only be awarded to a successful plaintiff — should have interest.

I can surely recognize, as in the instance which I referred the Attorney-General to during second reading, that where an insurance company disputes its liability to, say, a pension claimant and there is a long trial, when the pension claimant or the widow under the policy eventually received benefit that the court should say: "Well it was a worthwhile question of law, but the person should be awarded some interest on that phoney." But this is far less often than one might assume.

I think that if we are giving our judges the power to grant damage awards and to rely upon their skill, experience, and judgment in arriving at those awards that we can also rely upon them to consider those particular cases and what interest should properly be awarded in the justice of the case.

What I am concerned about, Mr. Attorney-General, is that by making it mandatory, what you do is impress upon judges, who approach the matter equitably, another problem. If they are dealing with a matter such as libel, Mr. Chairman, if a judge knows that a cause of action has been before the courts for, say, a year or more without any improper delay being attributable to any party, the judge indeed may take into account the fact that he is going to have to make a mandatory interest award in arriving at the amount of his judgment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why should he?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I appreciate that he shouldn't but I remind the Hon. Attorney-General of the famous story — I'm sure it's only a story — of the two lawyers who were appearing before a judge and were discussing with the judge the various items that should be considered in determining the amount of the pecuniary award. Both of them having made various submissions, when the judge finally gave his award one lawyer turned to the other and said: "The old goat has added in the date too." The judge peered over his glasses and said: "And so I have, my man. And it is going to stay that way."

You know, these things do occur. I just think that not to place in the hands of the responsible members of the bench a discretionary power is somehow remiss on the part of the Legislature in dealing with legislation of this kind because it may, indeed, work an injustice in as many cases as it would work in favour of justice.

MRS. JORDAN: As always, I hesitate to speak with the learned counsels in this House because I have no deep knowledge of the law at all. I brought this matter to the Attorney-General's attention when he first introduced the bill and I would like to again because, to my disappointment, he has given it no consideration whatsoever.

This is in the matter of where interest is awarded to the defendant and the delay of time of judgment has been substantial but is not, in fact, due in any way, shape, or form to the actions of the defendant but is due to the actions of the counsel or the lawyer involved, or the plaintiff. Then, Mr. Attorney-General, I feel the defendant is being penalized unfairly.

It is all very well, as the lawyers and the Attorney-General are very conversant in all the technicalities of the law and have lots of money to spend themselves, for the Attorney-General to say that then the defendant can turn around and have recourse, through the courts, to his lawyer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm in hock to the income tax.

MRS. JORDAN: Well if you are in hock and such a poor money-manager you shouldn't be Attorney-General of the province.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, what average person who is involved in a court case, and who might be unjustly charged with an interest rate due to delay, for one reason or another, on the part of his lawyer, would really have the inclination or the money to pursue a case against his own lawyer?

For one thing, if one has a lawyer then one assumes they are chosen because they have confidence in this person and they would be handling more than one case for the individual. They are likely to be handling a lot of family matters.

In a small town, Mr. Chairman, where people know each other well, a client would be most loath to take a court action against their lawyer or even to appeal to the Law Society, which is not likely to be effective.

So I ask again, Mr. Attorney-General, would you please make provision so that at the discretion of the judge — if you meet the requests of the Hon. Members of the Liberal party who have spoken on presenting discretion to the judge in this matter — at that time the client may make his presentation to the

[ Page 2686 ]

judge of why the delay was not his responsibility — that is, the responsibility of the lawyer.

This could be taken in consideration then and there could be a recommendation from the judge to council that he reduce his fee by a certain amount owing to the fact that for one reason or another he did not commit his obligation to his client.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, which way we go in terms of discretion is a nice point. We've gone this way; we'll listen.

MRS. JORDAN: Why?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've given the theory as to why we're proceeding the way we are. And I think we'll listen to judicial comment through the next year.

In answer to what the Member for North Okanagan has said — you must remember that whether the period of time is six months or six years, the fact is that the defendant has had the use of that money and is earning interest on that money during that period.

MR. GARDOM: Not necessarily so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Presumably he earns interest on the money.

MR. GARDOM: Sometimes they don't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes they don't. Sure they don't, I know. And I think the Hon. Members want to weaken the bill. We're trying to make a strong bill in the interest of justice here.

MR. GARDOM: No way.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We want to make it clear that when somebody has a damage claim, say against a large insurance thing or a big company, that there's no incentive for that company to delay the proceedings because they have the use of the money in the meantime. We want to insure that plaintiffs have justice so that if they're dragged through the courts over a long period of time before they get their money, at least they'll get some interest on it. You supported the principle, and we've gone a little bit further than you say we should have gone, now you're almost against it.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm for it.

MRS. JORDAN: For all the ranting and raving by the Attorney-General, and his marvellous show, he's missed the whole point of my point.

He's showing himself again always wrapped up in this myth and fiction of the big companies. He is referring to this over and over again in discussion of this bill, both in second reading and now. He says at the plea of the Hon. Members for discretionary powers that we will listen to judicial comments.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General should be listening to the people's comments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have.

MRS. JORDAN: This is one of the greatest problems we have got in society today, that people are victims of judicial wrangling, comma-moving and haggling. The Attorney-General is doing nothing to free the people from this type of legal jargon which has become a bondage and made them slaves to the lawyers, really. It's the people that I'm concerned about, Mr. Attorney-General.

You talk about the use of the money to earn interest. You are thinking of insurance companies and major corporations. What average Joe, who kills a cow on the highway and there's a court case over it and it goes on for three years, has pots of money that he's earning interest on? He's probably up to his eyeballs in debt. That's just a smokescreen and a fallacy, Mr. Attorney-General.

The average family in British Columbia is not out investing every nickel; they're rotating their money on a daily spending basis with a small amount of saving. And they get skinned in the courts.

Your unwillingness to listen to the plight of the small person in relation to this bill, make room for him for some common sense judgment, is just protecting a legal profile that you project in this House, and, as I say, is going to skin the little guy.

Please, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, would you get out of the judicial clouds and the history books — your name is going in there in gold letters — and come down to the level of we average people in this province who are going to have a problem with this section of the bill. Will you make provision for the human errors that are going to occur on the part of lawyers? Will you recognize that not everybody in the courts is a corporation or a big government, that there are a lot of people in courts who don't have "the use of the money to earn interest"?

The payment in capital terms and in interest is going to come out of their pay cheques, probably on time. If it is, in fact, the responsibility for the lawyer that the delay was there, then, Mr. Attorney-General, you have a responsibility to see that the lawyer bears that responsibility, not the little guy, and not to tie it all up in this mythical jargon you've got about big corporations.

Look at the law books in British Columbia — I'm no authority but I've had a lawyer take it through — British Columbia is one of the most litigation-active

[ Page 2687 ]

provinces in Canada. And of those cases a major portion are not corporate cases, they're individual cases involving many small families. So please, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, won't you not listen to the judicial voice in everything — will you listen to the people? Will you see that they're not skinned in this way? And, by George, I'll put a footnote to you in gold in the history books — that you were a great Attorney-General and you did listen to this concern for the small people who are really going to be hurt.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, pilot legislation dealing with interest on judgments was first considered way back in 1833 in a statute known as Lord Tenterdon's Act, and it made some provision for interest. Then in 1934, England, under their Law Reform Act, enacted a provision somewhat similar to this, but I understand it was discretionary. Then we found similar legislation in New South Wales, in Queensland, in New York State and, to a lesser extent, in Ontario.

But I absolutely fail to see why it should not be left to the courts to make up their minds whether or not interest should be allowed. The judges have that capacity and I think they have that responsibility. I say to the Hon. Attorney-General that to suggest if a judge finds that a plaintiff acted without propriety, he can penalize him in costs. You're suggesting a completely new concept of the law of costs because in 99 cases out of 100 costs follow the event and the courts are very, very loath to exercise the discretion of not awarding a successful plaintiff costs. They're very loath to do that and they only do that in the most exceptional circumstances.

There's another point which you have failed to consider Mr. Attorney-General. What about the delaying jurist? We have those situations in this province — where litigants have waited for one reason or another for the better part of a year for a judge to come down with reasons. Does that mean that the defendant is going to have to pay interest for that year through no fault of his own because the court has taken a year to make up its mind and reach a decision?

We're running into some very, very contested cases of which the Hon. Attorney-General has more particular knowledge than do I — very difficult cases whereby judgments are reserved. If you've got a reserved judgment, for six months shall we say, on $20 million, does that mean we're going to automatically find 5 per cent of that being awarded against the defendant? That's not fair. That's totally inequitable and you know it is.

You can well remember many cases when you were in active practice yourself whereby litigants had to wait for the better part of three months to six months, and unfortunately in some situations even to a year to get judgment, then to find an awarded interest becoming mandatory. That amounts to almost a statutory theft. That's a poor deal. I think all the Hon. Attorney-General has to do is in the first line of this section take out the word "shall" and put in the word "may".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Emasculate the bill.

MR. GARDOM: That is absolute rot. He says "emasculate the bill" when we find comparable legislation in these other areas that I've mentioned — in England where it's worked effectively, in New South Wales, Queensland, New York State and also in Ontario. I'm not aware of the specific provisions of the Ontario statute, but all you're doing is blindly following the report of the Law Reform Committee, and to suggest to this Legislature in response to the lady Member's question, "We'll let the judge see how it works." That's a preposterous suggestion and I agree thoroughly with her sentiment that it has nothing to do with the judges. They're not paying the 5 per cent; it's the individuals who are.

Look at the judge — this is going to be in the back of his mind: maybe there's a situation that requires the greatest of expertise, the greatest of research, the greatest degree of study on the evidence that has been presented, the requesting of transcripts, going over them in minute detail. He cannot be rushed, in certain circumstances, to arrive at his reasons for judgment, but he's going to have this hanging over his head. He has sort of reached the position that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery, but he's not too sure of exactly how much or whether the counter-claim should be allowed in its entirety.

We had enormous cases here in the construction of the dams, some of which are still undecided. The biggest one is still undecided, and with many, many issues there. Does this mean that the judge is going to feel that he's going to have to be rushed into making a decision by virtue of this minimum 5 per cent penalty of interest? I think it's a very unfair premise. I don't think you would have any difficulty with this bill.

It's not a question of emasculating; it's a question of bringing in proper legislation. And this should not be a mandatory interest provision. It should be a discretionary interest provision.

I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the word "shall" in line 1 where it appears be deleted and the word "may" substituted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

[ Page 2688 ]

NAYS — 28

MR. CHABOT: It's 11 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House I think we should carry on with this bill.

Leave not granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee, in discussing Bill 66, reports progress and asks leave to sit again. And the committee asks leave to record in the Journals that a division took place.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on pages 2681 and 2683:

49 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 49) intituled Unified Family Court Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, line 7: By deleting the words "by a judge".

Section 4, line 22: By striking out the word "inquiry" where it appears the second time and substituting the word "inquire".

Section 6: By deleting lines 3 to 7 and substituting the following:

"(a) in section 18 (2) (y), by inserting after the number '15,' the number '23,'; and"

By inserting after section 6 the following as section 6A:

"6A. The Testator's Family Maintenance Act being chapter 378 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is amended by adding after section 18 the following as section 19:

"Jurisdiction of County Courts.

"19. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the County Courts have jurisdiction to hear any application which may be, or has been, brought in the Supreme Court if all parties entitled to apply or required to be served pursuant to the provisions of this Act agree by a memorandum signed by them or their respective solicitors or agents, that any County Court named in the memorandum shall have power to hear such application; but the agreement shall not prejudice or affect any right of appeal of any of the parties."

Section 9, subsection (3), clause (b), lines 3 and 4: By deleting the words "objects, at the time the family counsellor is called as a witness in the proceeding," and substituting the words "does not consent".

[ Page 2689 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 2684:

66 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 66) intituled Prejudgment Interest Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) Line 4: By striking out the word "to" and substituting the words "in respect of".

(b) In (2) (a), line 2: By striking out the word "after" and substituting the words "immediately following".

Section 2:

(a) By repealing clause (b) and substituting the following:

"(b) where there is an agreement between the parties respecting interest; or' .

(b) By striking out the period in clause (c) and substituting the word "; or".

(c) By adding the following as clause (d):

"(d) where the judgment creditor waives in writing his right to an award of interest."

Sections 3, 4, and 5 are renumbered as sections 4, 5, and 6 respectively and the following is added as section 3:

"Default judgment.

"3. Where a judgment is obtained by default under an Act or the rules of court, the registrar of the court may exercise and carry out the powers and duties of the court under this Act."

Section 4 (as renumbered): By striking out section 4 (as renumbered) and substituting the following:

"Payment into court.

"4. Where a party pays money into court in satisfaction of a claim and another party does not accept the payment and obtains a judgment for an amount equal or less than that paid into court, the court shall, notwithstanding section 1, award interest only from the date the cause of action arose to the date of payment into court as if the date of payment into court bad been the date of judgment."

Section 5 (as renumbered), line 1: By striking out the word "section" in the first line and substituting the word "Act".

Section 6 (as renumbered), line 2: By striking out the word "May" and substituting the word "June".