[ Page 3273 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 138). Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 3273

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 139). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 3273

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112).

Second reading.

Mr. Morrison — 3273

Mr. Richter — 3274

Mr. McGeer — 3274

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3274

Division on second reading — 3275

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 81).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3275

Mrs. Jordan — 3276

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 3276

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3276

Mr. McGeer — 3277

Mr. Richter — 3277

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3277

Mr. Smith — 3278

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3279

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3280

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3281

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3281

Division on second reading — 3282

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3283

Mrs. Jordan — 3283

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3285

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3285

Mr. McClelland — 3286

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3287

Mr. Chabot — 3287

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3288

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3290

Mr. Wallace — 3290

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3291

Mr. McClelland — 3291

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3291

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 104).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3292

Mr. Wallace — 3292

Ms. Sanford — 3292

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3292

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3293

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MOTOR-VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motor-Vehicle Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 138 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION
AND DEVELOPMENT (BRITISH COLUMBIA)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 139 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 112.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT
(continued)

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but notice when this Bill 112 was first presented to the House that the area which was included in this bill was only that area which had been visited by the travelling committee. I'm sure if the committee had had a little more time they would have travelled a little farther, and perhaps a little farther north — and I see some of the Ministers nodding their heads — and therefore there would have been more areas included.

Now, it's logical to assume that if we ever wind this House up the committee may even travel this year. I wonder where they will travel this year, what areas they'll visit and I wonder how they'll be received on the islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bang, bang!

MR. MORRISON: And then I wonder, after having covered all the islands, what other special areas will be considered for future legislation.

In my opinion there obviously existed sufficient legislation already on the books capable of exercising planning authority over any of these areas. The Act I'm referring to is the Local Services Act, and therefore I wonder why the need for Bill 112, which apparently really only centralizes control.

I notice also in Bill 112 that those islands with low populations will have no trustees on the board at all. Only those islands that have large populations now with active boards will be represented. But there are a number of small islands in this trust area which do not, and will not, have representation on the board.

I speak as one of those property owners who does have a piece of property in that gem of an area included in this freeze. For many years my family and I have visited the Gulf Islands area, and for many years we visited this one particular island.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Name names.

MR. MORRISON: We've enjoyed its beauty, as the people in the area have, and ultimately we decided to acquire a piece of that island when it became available and was advertised for sale, and we purchased it through a real estate company.

We've only had the privilege in the years in which we've owned it to be a taxpayer. We've never had a development on that particular piece of property, never built a home, never built a summer cottage, done a lot of camping on it, had a lot of happy evenings around fires on the beach. But we bought the property with the idea that some day ourselves or our family would develop it.

We were quite happy to abide by the planning regulations of the local representatives. We were satisfied that those people who lived in that area cared about that land as much as we did and that the local residents were sensitive to the future development of their homes. Therefore, I'm disappointed that this Act takes away from those people the authority to administer their own affairs and that it centralizes once again, ultimately under the Minister and the appointed representatives, the final authority to do as they see fit.

I think that this bill is designed to give the government the power to direct the future growth of this entire area. It gives them the power to put in roads, bridges and ferry terminals, if they so desire, wherever and whenever they wish. It gives them the power not to worry how the local representatives feel in that area, and it also takes away from those local representatives the right to sue the Crown for any development that they might want to do.

I believe this bill will give them the power to put in that ferry crossing and to take that island that you so glowingly spoke of this afternoon — Mudge Island. The Member spoke of development on Mudge Island.

[ Page 3274 ]

As I see Mudge Island from the air, and having been on the shore and having walked over that island, if they proceed, as they apparently intend to, that island will be nothing but two bridges and a wide freeway. You talk about a development that was stopped on it. How are you going to do anything about this development? Nothing but two bridges and a wide freeway.

Frankly, I think this bill is a bad bill. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I think it sets a precedent which will be extended to other areas, and ultimately to other parts of the province — not just to the Gulf Islands area, not just the islands north of this particular one, throughout other parts of the province.

Therefore, for these reasons, I cannot support this bill and will vote against it.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in this Bill 112, I can see, as others have expressed their concern, the setting of a precedent which could apply to all areas of the province.

The Minister quite clearly laid out that there are six regional districts involved in the area that is covered with this bill. Because of that fact alone, by appointing a board of trustees either you're going to dilute the powers of the regional board or, as the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) illustrated today, the trustees would have no power. If this is so, I can see in the principle of this bill and its application that other regional districts will be affected, whether they want to be or not.

It comes down to a point that either the Minister or the government don't need Bill 112, or else they don't need regional boards. It's just that simple. As I see it, it will dilute the powers of the regional boards who have been working, and maybe this is what the government wants. As far as a board of trustees being set up, I can't hardly vision the government setting up a board of trustees without having some powers to deal with matters that should truly come under the jurisdiction of a regional board.

I must oppose this legislation.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point, Grey): Mr. Chairman, I notice the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) reading very carefully that publication noted for its factuality, honesty and forthrightness — MLAs at Work. I see the reportorial quality hasn't improved any since the old days when the Liberals had to bring in a motion of censure against the bulletin for inaccurate reporting. And I gather from the bulletins about this particular issue it's no different from in the bad old days.

I think we are still in the bad old days as far as attitudes toward government are concerned because this particular bill takes away the most important ingredient of all in democracy — the accountability of those who make decisions. You cannot afford to take any area of British Columbia and remove it from the democratic process, because in doing so you undermine the democratic process itself.

I suppose all the people on the opposition side could do in the interests of accountability was to promise to the public the repeal of this iniquitous and dictatorial piece of legislation the moment that new government took office because that is the only way you can prevent people who are not elected and not accountable to the public from making decisions which may or may not be good decisions, but which nevertheless will not meet the test of accountability that those of us who sit in this chamber must ultimately meet.

If it becomes the habit of MLAs at work to misinform their own supporters in the public of British Columbia as to the true nature of their activities here and to introduce legislation that is fundamentally undemocratic in its nature, then of course the only thing to do is to have the people of British Columbia set to work and turn those MLAs out. And when they have done that job, we will restore credibility to this province by repealing this disgraceful Act against democracy in British Columbia.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I only have a few remarks to make. I think the Hon. Members for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) have answered most of the questions that were raised by the Members who spoke in opposition to the bill.

I might say that the opposition usually have been reading the bill with their blinders on, but in any event it has been an interesting debate.

I am sorry the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) is not in his seat, because even though he has taken his junket of fear on the islands, still the greatest majority of letters that I am receiving — and I received quite a number of letters on this bill — are in favour of the trust. And there is no question that these are the unedited ones. So I am quite convinced that not only are the residents themselves satisfied and happy with the contents of the bill, but also those people who use the islands on a part-time basis, either to visit, to camp or who have summer homes, are very happy with the contents of this bill. I can assure you of that.

They are talking about eroding local control — this bill, of course, gives the control back to the people on the islands. As has been mentioned a number of times, the vote weighed against some of those islands...well, a number of them have no resident representative at all. Most of the islands have no resident representative at all. This gives them, those that have a population on the islands, two representatives on a question of five at the very

[ Page 3275 ]

minimum, and a possibility of some of the other appointed members as well.

There is a mention of the International Joint Commission. This bill, of course, has nothing to do with the report of the International Joint Commission. This bill is to preserve the islands, not to ruin the islands, in my opinion. This is in no way connected with the report of the International Joint Commission.

There was some mention of the Nantucket trust and the Martha's Vineyard trust. Those pieces of legislation, if you want to read them, have a lot of appointments to their trust, but if you will read it, they have very little power and can very well do nothing. Really, it is a paper trust rather than a trust that can act in any way, unless it is totally agreed by quite a number of jurisdictions.

The regional plans in a few of the islands, not many, but in a few of the islands are in place. They will remain in place, and that will be the key to the development of those particular islands. Those have been prepared by the local residents, and they will continue. Other areas will be preparing their own plans in the same way as the ones that have their plans prepared. The trust, I hope, will assist this method and will assist the regional districts.

I can assure you that the regional districts, by and large, will be very happy because they, generally speaking, find it very difficult to administer these islands in the way that they have to be administered. I would look to great cooperation between the trust, the local groups and the regional districts.

The Local Services Act, that is true enough — I have the power now to control those islands as Minister. What I am trying to do is to give that power to the local people, let the local people look after their own destinies.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have the power right now. We don't need to worry about these sorts of things, but that is what we are trying to do. and the Local Services Act they bring up — that is the way it was brought in, the 10-acre freeze. Now, the people there don't want any more 10-acre freezes; they want to get out of it.

On the other islands, before we can remove the 10-acre freeze, these islands will have to get their plans in position so they can protect themselves. The trust, I hope, will assist them in making arrangements for their community plans, developed by the local people on the islands.

I would just like to mention that there has been quite a lot of quoting from a certain publication, and it has been somewhat criticized. I just want to say that I agree the wording was somewhat unfortunate. The criticism that was levied here was, I think, quite valid. I know in our experience we didn't encounter too many large-scale developers on our trip through the islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would tell you if I knew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 11

Bill 112, Islands Trust Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): In the short time since this bill has been law in the province some deficiencies in the original wording have been drawn to our attention — or, at least, deficiencies in the eyes of some people.

For example, with respect to the legal authority to guarantee, questions were raised by lawyers for some of the agencies with whom we were dealing that the provision to guarantee referred only to principal and not to interest. That is being clarified in this amendment before us.

While the original legislation did say that we could name a representative to attend board meetings, it did

[ Page 3276 ]

not say specifically that such a representative could be there as a director to vote, to be a director of the corporation; that, too, is being clarified in the legislation.

The limit to which we could go in the original legislation of $100,000, as I intended at the time — referred to a specific enterprise rather than to the grand total; whereas it's being read by others to refer to the total. So that, too, is being clarified.

The one new feature, I suppose, the last one, does give us the authority to deal with banks — including credit unions, of course — and to allow them to interview applicants for assistance under this — to act, in other words, as agents on behalf of the government in considering and in negotiating loans or assistance under this particular legislation.

In other words, it's really just tidying up the legislation that was passed in the fall session, 1973.

I move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wonder if the Minister would accept an adjournment of this debate in light of the fact that our critic is not in the House this evening. He's unavoidably away.

AN HON. MEMBER: As usual. When somebody asks for an adjournment....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an unfair statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the obvious answer....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine, in view of the fact that the Premier's not here and so many Ministers are not here, and that the government has refused to issue any order of the day to the opposition to keep to, the Minister would be quite willing to accept an adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to speak to the bill....

MRS. JORDAN: No, I wish to move....

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish to move the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House, please do so.

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 32

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. It has been before the House now for six weeks. It's a very short bill with five sections, a bill which really could be best examined in committee stage. As the Minister has explained, the purpose of the bill is very clear. It was introduced on March 19, which is just a little more than two months ago — a five-section bill, five very short sections. It's less than a page and a half, and that's why we feel that we should proceed with it this evening.

The bill makes it clear that the Minister can do certain things. He can....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He can guarantee the interest...

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...and other costs as well as the principal of the loan.

MR. McGEER: What is the limit on loans?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: $100,000. Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: $100,000.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, up to $100,000. It makes certain that a representative of the Crown can be a representative on the board and....

Interjection.

[ Page 3277 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, he does. Sure, it's right in there. It's right there; there's no question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It allows the Minister to authorize banks and other lending institutions to process applications on his behalf, which is a normal procedure adopted by the federal government on many, many occasions. It simply allows the bank to make the loans on behalf of the government. I suggest that the time to ask the questions and thoroughly discuss.... Because each section does a different thing. After more than two months, I suggest that we get on with the business and pass this bill.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't really plan to debate this particular legislation. I don't know if I qualify as the agricultural critic. I think that all Members of the Liberal Party at one time or another have been accused of agricultural interest. But I really admire the stirring description of the bill given by the Minister of Transport. He's a great speed reader. (Laughter.)

Perhaps the things he says about the bill are true. I hope his record's better than with the ICBC. I would have enjoyed a more thorough explanation from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) other than that they made a lot of mistakes writing the bill the first time, so they've got to bring another Act in front of us to correct them all.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you know how to avoid making mistakes, Pat?

MR. McGEER: Well, I think one way is to prepare the legislation thoroughly and not bring in 100 or so badly drafted bills. Perhaps it's necessary to work on them all year, introduce your bills at the beginning of the session and refer every bill to a select standing committee of the House. That's a pretty standard method of operation in most legislative assemblies.

It's only under that dreadful old Social Credit government that established these traditions...that the NDP not only persists in carrying on, but seems to worsen as time passes. It's all very well for the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to say that the bill has been on here for two months. He read the date on which it was introduced; I doubt that he read the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we are, after all, straying away from the principle of the bill, which the Hon. Member could have read in two minutes.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it's quite possible to read the bill in two or three minutes. It's less easy to understand it. It appears, because it has come onto our order paper, that it's not nearly so easy to draft a bill. Obviously, the original legislation was badly drafted. We suspect that there are still plenty of errors in this Act of the Legislature that the government is asking us to pass.

I regret that we're rushing into the bill. I think the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) probably had some excellent comments to make. All Members of the House know that he's very deliberate in his presentations. He doesn't hurry his arguments; he thinks carefully about what he's saying. And we're being deprived of his experience and knowledge...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: ...before we come to a vote. I for one would not feel confident in casting my vote for a bill without having heard from the Member for South Peace River.

I do think, Mr. Speaker, that with 34 other government bills on the order paper, if we were to run out of those — or 42 government bills; 34 opposition bills have yet to be presented — there is hardly the urgency to discuss this particular bill this evening.

Normal courtesy in a parliament is to grant an adjournment after the Minister has given what explanation he can for the bill he has introduced. He gave that explanation. It wasn't completely satisfactory, to my way of thinking. I would urge the Members of the opposition to vote against this bill and I would also urge the Members of the government to vote against it too, to teach that cabinet Minister a lesson.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, it's extremely interesting to hear the expounding of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also our First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

It was the intention of the official opposition to support this bill, as we will, even in view of the fact that we are denied the privilege of having our critic here — who is unavoidably away, as many of the government side of the House are unavoidably away tonight. However, he would have been here tomorrow anyway. So we are going to support the bill, whether the courtesies are extended to the official opposition or not on their asking for adjournment.

MRS. JORDAN: Quack, quack!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Yes, the Member for North Okanagan might well say "quack, quack!" You know — duck. You'd better duck.

[ Page 3278 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you kindly address...?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. On Bill 81, Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting that under Bill 81 the duck quacked. Here after nine weeks the official opposition that pretends — and I say "pretends" — to represent the farmers.... What legislation did you bring in? What sort of a budget did you have for agriculture? It was less than half of one per cent for any one year. And this for agriculture and under farm loans.

One of the reasons the farmer has to borrow money today is because after 20 years of Social Credit, you've bankrupted him. This is why we have to bring in this kind of legislation.

Your agricultural critic, where is he tonight? He's not here. Where is the leader of the official opposition? He was absent; we had to ring division bells to bring him in. So the Member for North Okanagan says, "quack, quack!" Duck for her.

What is this doing? This is enabling the farmers...it's removing them from the clutches of the financial corporations, the finance companies, the loan sharks, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Sure, this strikes right at the heart of finance company capitalism, which you people represent — the loan companies, the companies that try to charge the farmers 24 per cent. This little Minister of Agriculture has brought in more legislation, more help, the greatest budget to help agriculture in the history of this province. And your leader and your critic are absent and the Member for North Okanagan says, "quack, quack!" Good for her.

MRS. JORDAN: I sure got under your skin, didn't I?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, when I come to your riding, I'll talk mining — up in Gibraltar.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, and a little less heckling all around?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the Members of the opposition wouldn't try to sidetrack me, they'd be more successful. The interest rate will be about a quarter of what it used to be under Social Credit. The interest rate is designed to assist the farmers throughout this province.

I was very pleased to see the Members of the other little rump group, the Liberal Party, which represents the flower-box farmers of the province. Most of the farming is in the flower boxes in the windows, window-box farming. They represent a group, too. I think most are able to finance....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, no, I'm all for them. I have a few of those too. But for the official opposition to try to set back this legislation for another minute, let alone another session or another day, shows that they are absolutely out of touch with the farmers, the people who produce the basic ingredients for a good life in this province. The fact that they were out of touch for so many years is the reason they're sitting over there now. Unless they can come forward with some good, basic, constructive criticism with something more positive than what we have, they're going to be decimated to a lesser group than what they are now. They'll have folded their tents and faded away after the next election.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's a pleasure to participate in this debate. I think a few points should be made abundantly clear at this particular time in this debate. If there's to be a workable arrangement in this House between the government and the opposition side, then I think the type of speech we've just heard from the Hon. Minister of Public Works does nothing to enhance the position of any of the Members of this House or allow those of us in the official opposition to place any credibility in the Minister or the Ministers of the Crown when they suggest to the official opposition that we will follow a certain order when we're discussing bills before this House.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're still in love with the finance companies.

MR. SMITH: The only reason we're not discussing the bills of the Minister of Finance at this very time is because the Minister of Finance is not in his place in this House.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: There was an undertaking this afternoon that we would discuss his bills first and foremost. Where is he at?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! When I call for order, I would like the courtesy of being able to explain what the point of order is. In this case, on both sides of the House, there has been considerable accusation about other Members not

[ Page 3279 ]

being present. But it doesn't forward the debate on the principle of the bill. I would ask both sides of the House to please desist from this practice.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it would have been common courtesy for the House Leader to accept an adjournment on this debate for one reason and one reason only: the official critic for the opposition, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), has missed the first day in the total session. It was the first time that he has been absent in all the days we've sat in the House. To deny him an opportunity to debate this bill, in my opinion, is not becoming of a House Leader or anyone in that position when they have an opportunity to call bills in any order they see fit.

Now, speaking to the bill, it's....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Minister of Public Works. If you knew half as much about farming as you seem to indicate, you would still be in the insurance business. You obviously didn't know much about that either.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Will you run through that again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: This bill is to patch up an Act brought before the House by the Minister in a previous session.

We don't object to that, except to say that at the time we first debated the Act we said it was a little hasty and ill-conceived and that there were certain things within the Act the Minister had not properly thought out. It's obvious that, even before the farmers who will take advantage of this bill have an opportunity to do that, the Minister is already bringing amendments before the House because he's not sure of what should have been included in the first Act.

We're pleased that the Minister is moving in an area which will help the agricultural industry. But let it be said now that the test of this bill will not be in the statute that was previously passed or the amendments that are before this House tonight. The test of this bill will be in how it works to the benefit of the people who avail themselves of receiving the industry improvement Act.

If the farmers receive the treatment that the government would like us to believe they will receive, then the Act will be worthwhile. While we support the amendment in principle, I think that not only ourselves but the farming community also will reserve their judgment on exactly how good the bill is. The test of it will be in the application and the use of it. If it benefits the farmers, and the interest rates are as they should be, then it will be beneficial to the farmers. But if it's just another means of the Province of British Columbia in the right of the Crown advancing money, loans, grants or guarantees to the farmers on the understanding that somewhere down the line they have a caveat against that farm at an interest rate the farmers cannot afford, taking into consideration the financial problems that all farmers have been faced with in British Columbia, then in effect it will not have been of service to the farmers but a disservice.

I say this in all sincerity: we'll reserve our judgment until we see how this bill works and if it really does do something that benefits farmers in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I want to take my place in the debate on the principle of this bill to speak in favour. If there has been a group in this province or a section of our society in this province that has been ignored for years and years and years, it has been the farming community.

As far as I'm concerned, this bill allows the Minister on behalf of the government to step into the normal institutions and guarantee the farmer's loan for the money he needs to operate his farm or his ranch, whatever it may be, without having a stricture laid on him such as it must be paid back in three years or five years or at a high rate of interest. It is my hope that the intent of this bill — and I feel quite sure that this is the intent of the bill — is to give the farming community, the agricultural community of this province a break that they have needed for a long time.

There are all kinds of operations in this province that borrow money, of course, for their operation — whether it's for a mortgage on a home or a finance for a business, and many other kinds of industry in the province that have to borrow money at times to finance themselves to see their operation to its successful conclusion. They have always had an opportunity in the market for a fast return on their money in many cases — except the farmer.

There is no way the farmer can borrow money and repay in three or four or five years. He has to have a lengthy term for repayment. He has to have a better rate of interest because his particular operation is not one that gives a fast return. It is both a combination of a business enterprise and a family holding, a family operation, a way of life. The financial institutions of the province have not been interested in the past in financing this kind of an operation where you have to wait a long time for the capital interest and the interest on the money to come back.

[ Page 3280 ]

As far as I see the principle of this bill, it is a guarantee to the lending institutions so that the farmer can have a longer time on the payments and a better rate of interest on the repayment — something he has needed for years and years.

If we look at the record of the acreage that has gone out of production in this province in the years in the past, we can see that we have a decline in farmers and we have had a backing away of an agricultural operation because it takes a lifetime in many areas to build up this kind of an operation. By the time you have all the debts paid off and the interest paid off, there is nothing left and there's not much time left in your life. But on this type of a bill, there is an opportunity for the government, backed by the people of the province, to step into the lending institutions and say to them we will guarantee this loan.

Therefore you can give this farmer a longer term to pay and you can give him a better rate of interest because you will not have the credit risks that you have in the normal lending environment in the province.

I think this is going to be good for the province. I think we are going to see under a bill like this a better situation for young people to go into agriculture, with longer-term loans and a better term of interest. You're going to see people in the agriculture industry at the present time who will have a better deal and who will be quicker to get a loan to extend their operation — their operation, after all, is going to assist all the people in this province.

So everyone in British Columbia who is now moving to the cities — who love the farms but don't want to farm themselves — are saying to the people on the farms: "If you need money we will, through the government, support your application for a loan and guarantee that the principal and the interest will be paid."

The farmer will get a better deal on this because of it. We in the cities will benefit from it because it won't be necessary to import as much as we have. There will be an expansion of the agriculture industry in the province; there will be a lot more of our young people able to go on the land and develop the farms; we won't have this continual falling away of farmers and drop in the population of the agricultural industry because of this bill. They will be able to get a loan for a long term at a better interest, as I see it, so that they will be able to go into agriculture as they want to do and as this bill makes it possible for them to do. So as far as I can see, I can't see why any Member in the House would not stand in support of it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that the hopes and dreams and aspirations which the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) has for this legislation could come true. When we passed this legislation just a year ago there was great hope that it would enable people in the farming industry to go into the products industry division and to make a significant contribution not only to the industrial development of this province but also to the supply of the foodstuffs which we so seriously required.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Pardon me, last fall. This legislation was supported by all sides on the floor at that time.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You supported it but voted against it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't vote against it. I would never have voted against it.

The experience we have had since the legislation was passed, however, Mr. Speaker, leaves one to doubt whether the hopes of the Member for Kamloops can really come true.

One of the significant farm products industry activities that has taken place since last fall was the advance of moneys to the South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., with the guarantee of the Minister of Agriculture. This was authorized by an order-in-council under this particular piece of legislation — the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act — and it is significant that the authority that was then given to the Minister of Agriculture to guarantee a loan of $1.5 million was for a repayment of that borrowing at an interest rate of 1.25 per cent above the prime rate of the Royal Bank of Canada or 12 per cent per annum, whichever was the lesser.

I trust that neither the Member for Kamloops nor anyone else is going to suggest to this House that 1.25 per cent above the prime lending rate of the Royal Bank of Canada or 12 per cent is anything like the low-interest loan required to support an industrial development in the agricultural community. I would certainly hope that no Member of the government would suggest that it is in any way appropriate for any lending institution to suggest that they are obliged to charge 1.25 per cent above the prime lending rate of a chartered bank of Canada when they have the guarantee of a Minister of the Government of British Columbia. What has happened to the credit rating of the government of the Province of British Columbia when they provide their guarantee and have to pay 1.25 per cent above prime interest rates?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Nonsense!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You bet it's nonsense, Mr.

[ Page 3281 ]

Minister — absolute nonsense that the Minister would have to place his signature guaranteeing the loan at 1.25 per cent above prime rates or 12 per cent, whichever is the lesser.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You're talking nonsense.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not talking nonsense at all. It's right in the order-in-council. It's in the agreement.

MR. LIDEN: Vote against the bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I intend to vote against the bill because, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a complete delusion so far as the people in the agricultural community are concerned. They are not getting the kind of assistance and support from their government that they were led to believe last fall they would get under this legislation.

There is another aspect of this bill which I find to be disturbing. We had a limitation as to the amount of any particular loan which the Minister could make with the authority of the cabinet. We find that this limitation is now being removed. The Minister no longer needs the authority of cabinet; he's entitled to make guarantees up to $100,000 in respect of any single enterprise. Before there was a limitation, but that is now disappearing. That concerns me.

You know, it is important that the government lend its fiscal support to agriculture, but there still must be checks and balances. We had this debate last fall. This little bill that is only going to correct some inadequacies corrects them in such a way as to remove at least one of the checks and balances that was in the original legislation. I oppose it for that reason as well.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose of the greatest concern to me, is the fact that in the last section of this bill there is an amendment to the regulatory power of cabinet. The regulatory power is being extended to include the right to establish yet another corporation without any reference whatsoever to this assembly. By regulation we are giving carte blanche power to the cabinet to create another corporation. If there is one thing we do not require in this province, and certainly to assist the agricultural industry, it is the right to establish another corporation whose powers are not defined, whose limits are not defined, and whose fiscal responsibilities are such that it is not obliged to report this assembly.

I thought after the debates of last fall, with all of the arguments that were presented to the government, that we would, at long last, have seen the end to this move on the part of the cabinet to take unto itself the broadest possible powers that could ever be bestowed upon the executive council. Yet here, in this little bill, sneaked in as a simple amendment in the last section, is a power by regulation to establish a corporation.

Perhaps the Minister, in the fullness of time, can explain to us why this specific power is required. For the life of me I do not see how he can stand before this assembly and in any way satisfy us or the people of British Columbia as to why that authority is required.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I happen to be in an agricultural riding, and it is the first time I have spoken.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this bill, as I come from an agricultural riding which is a microcosm of the entire industry in this province.

This Minister has already used the provisions of the Act, which we are amending here, to take an equity position in Swan Valley Foods Ltd., an industry which will create 100 jobs in the agricultural industry at the processing end, something that hasn't been done in this province. It will be creating and giving security and support to this industry, and creating confidence in the agricultural community of Creston, confidence that is spreading, not only to create a new vegetable-growing industry, but a vegetable-processing industry.

This confidence is also spreading to revitalize the fruit-growing industry in that area. The fruit co-op is planning for expansion and relocation, and modernizing of its facilities.

The dairy producers are talking about dairy processing in the area. The alfalfa producers are continuing their intentions to enter into pellet or cube production. So it is with this type of vehicle that this becomes possible.

It is through this Minister and the type of legislation that he is bringing to this House, particularly through this particular Act, that this new wave and new revitalization of the agricultural industry, particularly where it is visible in my riding in the Creston valley, is spreading a new wave of optimism and new hope for the agricultural producers of this province, and I intend to support this fully.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) interpreted my remarks to be an admission of the fact that it was bad legislation when it was introduced in the fall session. I suppose we could have avoided any errors in legislation by, perhaps, doing very little or doing nothing at all.

The previous administration, so far as my department is concerned, in seven sessions passed six pieces of legislation to do with agriculture, and some of them were quite major pieces of legislation.... It is true they did require some changes, and perhaps more changes will become apparent as time goes on. But it is only as we use this legislation...and we

[ Page 3282 ]

didn't have an opportunity to use it at all until we had it — now that we have it, as we use it we find examples of changes, improvements that can be made in the legislation.

I make no apology for standing before you and admitting that improvements in legislation can be made, as long as we are proceeding to introduce legislation. We will be doing that, I suppose, just as long as this session lasts.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) mentioned one particular deal. I thought perhaps other Members might have asked about others. However, he did mention the South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., and questioned why it was necessary for the government to guarantee a loan at such a high rate of interest.

Well, of course, as we said when this legislation was introduced in the fall session, we would deal with groups of farmers who had some idea of some agricultural enterprise that they wanted to pull together. The purpose of the legislation was to assist them through government involvement.

In the case of South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., we were dealing with a group of farmers who, for reasons best known to themselves because they were active, presumably, in that organization, preferred to deal with a local credit union. And the local credit union, because it was investing money that it was getting from the members in that area and just didn't have access to the sort of funds that other lending institutions might have had access to, was obliged to charge a rate of 12 per cent, or 1.5 per cent above the Royal Bank prime rate.

It is not the best rate that could have been achieved because it wasn't the rate that was achieved in other instances — 1.25 above the Royal Bank prime — because in other instances we did sign agreements that provided financing at much lower rates. But in each case the negotiation was done by the group of farmers or the cooperative with which we were dealing; we left that part of it to them as long as it wasn't an outrageous situation, and as far as this particular party is concerned, dealing with a credit union is not in our minds an outrageous situation, so we did back them in that. Had it been something higher than that, of course, we wouldn't have gone along with it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Rip-off!

HON. MR. STUPICH: We tried to get it lower. We are still trying to get it lower. We are still trying because in that particular instance negotiations are still going on between the Lakeview Credit Union and B.C. Central to try to get it at a lower interest rate, which will be passed on immediately to that organization.

Beyond that, as the Members know, there is provision in the legislation for this particular legislation to be used to discount or to rebate part of the costs of the interest or of the capital, indeed, if we feel this is in the interests of supporting that particular local enterprise. We have said we will do that, and we will certainly look into this one when the fiscal year-end comes.

With regard to your very specific questions asked on section 5(a) — I prefer to deal with that in the committee stage. The reason that I have been told is the legal reason, and I really don't feel quite that comfortable in giving that reason here on the floor of the House. I will get it and I will deal with that, I hope, more adequately in the committee stage of the bill.

With respect to our determination to proceed with this legislation at this particular time — it has already been mentioned that it has been on the order paper for something like nine weeks — in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), unavoidable because he is tied up with visiting representatives of state; we thought we would proceed with non-controversial legislation. On our side we couldn't think of anything more non-controversial than Bill 81.

Now it happens that we picked one where the official spokesman wasn't here, and there would still be adequate opportunity for us to deal with it in committee stage when that Member or anyone else who wants to go into more details of this very short, very simple and very non-controversial legislation will have his opportunity to fully participate in the debate. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 81.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

NAYS — 4

[ Page 3283 ]

Bill 81, Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 129, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 129 — two very minor changes: the first one changing the amount of the total guarantee that may be provided for agricultural credit. This time we are dealing with the farmer loans — the individual loans — and I have a feeling that two of the Members who spoke in the previous debate were really debating this bill rather than the previous one. But in this case it's a matter of increasing the total amount that may be guaranteed, also authorizing the Minister to reimburse as well as discount agricultural credit loans.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

In this particular case it's even shorter, it's even less controversial than Bill 81, if you like, but if it happens that the opposition critic is the same one as was for the previous bill, and if someone in the opposition would like to move an adjournment on behalf of that Member, the government will accept it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll speak against it, then vote for it.

MRS. JORDAN: We put our position before in relation to the opportunity for our critic to be here, and the Minister wouldn't accept it, and the other bill was perhaps a more important bill, so we are prepared to debate this now, Mr. Speaker.

I was just looking at the date when this was introduced — May 9, 1974 — and this is another example of legislation being introduced 30 days after the time when the government suggested that they'd like to have the House prorogued and the session over with. I think it's only fair to acknowledge tonight that if it wasn't for the opposition and their diligence in....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please confine her remarks to the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: I am.

If it wasn't for the diligence of the opposition in scrutinizing the public accounts and spending of this government, and persisting in endeavours to better the opportunities for the people in British Columbia, this bill would never have been able to come in and be of benefit to the farmers of British Columbia.

I'm sure the Minister, in closing, will pay due respect to the Members in the House for allowing him the opportunity and the time that he needed to get his legislation organized and to try and help the government out of the tight squeeze it found itself in when it's proven to be unable to prepare legislation such as the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act in time.

Just to mention in referring to the last debate, as it refers to this, I can hardly wait to hear the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) come in as he speaks to the benefits this bill will bring to the individual farmers because this Member had his opportunity to expand benefits to farmers, to take a strong position of aid to farmers in British Columbia, and to recommend to this government that this bill we are debating now not tie itself to a slightly above prime rate of Canada lending, not tie itself to the term "low-term loans" or low-interest loans, when in fact we are talking about 8, 10 and 12 per cent.

That Member knows, as the rest of us know and as this Minister knows, that agriculture in British Columbia cannot survive if it must face what are called low-interest loans at 10 and 12 per cent. That Member for Kamloops had the opportunity to make strong recommendations to this Minister so that this piece of legislation would not only have carried more money for loans to farmers to put themselves in hock, but, in fact, would have made a recommendation of cash grants to facilitate the streamlining and the rehabilitation of a number of agricultural industries in British Columbia.

So it rings rather hollow, Mr. Speaker, to hear that Member speak in this House when he fell down so badly on the agricultural committee as its chairman, and when he didn't recommend to the government that this bill, rather than speaking in terms of low-interest loans of 10 and 12 per cent, didn't recommend that these loans, in fact, should be low-interest loans averaging around 4 to 5 per cent in order that the producers in this province who sometimes have to work up to seven years from the time of their beginning of their operation to the time that they can expect any income.

Mr. Speaker, I would speak specifically of the fruit industry in British Columbia, which will hope, I'm sure, to take part in this Act and benefit from it. How can they possibly, when one examines the situation in Washington state, the competition that is going to be increased against our British Columbia producers, when one examines the federal legislation and its trade and policies, not recognize that the British Columbia fruit industry is facing a situation more severe than it ever has in its history?

It's incumbent upon this government and this

[ Page 3284 ]

Minister, as should have been recommended by the agricultural committee, that this Act should either encompass truly low-interest loans over a very long period of time, and that it should also have encompassed cash grants of a one-third nature for capital construction within the industry itself without any strings attached, Mr. Speaker, other than that the industry prove efficient, produce quality fruit and try and maintain itself in a fair and competitive position with a reasonable return of profits, not just cost of production to the producers.

I'm sure it would interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that for a fruit producer who faces the problems of weather and the uncertainty of the market to look at a long-term loan of 10 and 12 per cent from the time that he plants one portion of his orchard until the time that he can garner an income, which is at best seven years, the debt load that he's going to carry is enough to boggle the mind. To suggest that this is going to be of major assistance to the producers in this province is a far, far cry from what the truth is.

I would urge the Minister, when he asks the right to reduce the amount of principal or interest owing over a period of time, that rather than doing this on a piecemeal basis and not advising this House what he has in mind, that he adopts an overall policy extending loans over a period of years at a low-interest rate or a sliding-scale rate of, say, no per cent the first year up to conventional loans of 10 per cent within the 12th year and allow two years of forgiveness at the producer's option so that the producer can, at his own leisure in accord with his own budgeting and his own income, decide when he might have a period of forgiveness.

If the government adopted this type of plan, the producers would then be getting low-interest loans averaging 5 per cent over a 12-year period with two years of forgiveness at the producer's option, and then the opportunity to move to more conventional financing or then the opportunity to move to government-backed loans of a more conventional interest rate. That, Mr. Speaker, would then be of benefit to the producers in this province, and it would be an action of the government proving that it was really coming to grips with some of the problems of the producers and not moving in a manner which really is going to leave most producers, instead of being in debt to the banker, in debt to the government.

I think, if one were to discuss this with the producers, that I'm safe in suggesting that they would rather be in debt to the banker than they would be in debt to the government.

The great value of the provincial credit rating is of no value to the citizens of British Columbia, in specific reference to this Act, unless in fact that force comes into play to give the producer a genuine low-interest loan that he can live with so that his return is not only a bare cost of production return but is comparable to the return in other average industries and so that he has an opportunity to not just make a bare wage and a bare minimum return on his investment but in fact he can free himself from debt and live in a manner that his energies and his knowledge and his input would return to him if he was working in other sectors of industry in British Columbia.

We criticize this Act, Mr. Speaker, because had the Minister listened to the opposition and specifically the critic for the official opposition and other Members during debate on the original Agricultural Credit Act, he would have been aware and he would have accepted our suggestion and I believe amendment when we advised him that $5 million was not even a drop in the bucket, if he recognized the number of producers in this province who would want to avail themselves of financial assistance. If you want to get more producers in this province, Mr. Speaker, then you have to have the $15 million that he is now asking for, but this should have been available in October.

Mr. Minister, what has happened, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the government in its wisdom has set up a situation where loans were not available to producers and not the quantity that they needed was available to them, but in fact everybody knew the legislation was going to be in effect. You had producers bidding against producers for milk quotas and inflating the cost of these. You had producers and potential producers bidding on land and competing against each other, and then you had other land buyers going in and intervening and buying land and holding it so that they could resell it to producers.

It was another example of the government moving too quickly, Mr. Speaker, without thinking out their programme, without bringing in their legislation in an operable form so that the tide didn't have an opportunity to build, so that the producers could have availed themselves of the money at that time, and this inbuilt competitive inflation that we now have all over the province between producers and potential producers wouldn't have eroded more of their capital and their income.

I'd like to know from the Minister when he closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, if he would be so kind, how many actual grants have been made to individual producers now out of the original $5 million, and how many he has on his desk now ready for approval. Would the Minister mind listening? I hope he's going to answer this. How many has he on his desk now ready for approval when this bill passes?

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, particularly the moving of the $5 million capital to $15 million, we will support this bill. But we would reiterate our plea

[ Page 3285 ]

for the Minister to reassess the thinking that he has made public in terms of what he considers a low-interest loan so that this bill can have a maximum benefit and a maximum effect to the producers and to agricultural production in British Columbia, as it should do.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This bill, I think, is one that puts the farmer on a footing where he has to be if he's going to compete in the future.

The previous speaker spoke about 4.5 per cent and 5 per cent loans. This is the kind of talk that has been going on for the last 50 years in this province and in other provinces in Canada. The farmer has been considered a second-class citizen in a second-class business, so he needs special favouritism, he needs special loans, he needs special grants, and he needs assistance.

If there is one group of citizens in this province who should not need special assistance it is the food producing industry in the province, and the farmers who are engaged in producing food. For the last 15 or 20 years, or 30 or 40 years — as far as you want to look back, if you want to do the research — you find that in all kinds of areas of this province, the taxpayers through the government have stepped in with special concessions for industry and manufacturing in every area. And they have never stepped in for the farmer except in the plea for low-interest loans.

The agricultural community in this province should be in a good enough situation that it needs no special favours, no special grants and no special loans. Unfortunately it is in a position now where it does need special consideration. This bill does increase the amount that the Minister can guarantee for individual farmers who are in the farming community. But it is my hope that as the years go by under this government, that there will not have to be special grants and low-interest loans for farming. It is my hope that farming can be put on a good, sound basis where farmers do not need special consideration and special grants and special loans.

Why should everyone in this province have to step in and assist farmers simply because they are farmers operating in a modern society to survive? They should not need special consideration. Farming in this province should be just as good an industry to indulge in as being a machinist or operating a garage or operating a store, or any other business you want to think of that operates in the province today.

MRS. JORDAN: Then let them sell their land.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There's absolutely no reason why a farmer should have special consideration as long as the people in this province realize that for years and years and years the percentage of the average income paid in this province for food has been going down and down and down. And the one that has been carrying the people of this province on his back is the farmer. What we have to do in this province is make the farming situation an industry and a modern business where someone can go into this business and operate just as any other business does in the province, with no special favours, no special considerations, but a good return for the work they do.

We are in the position right now, as opposed to 15 years ago, where we're paying 4.5 per cent less of the average income for our food than we did in that time. For at least 40 or 50 years, we have been saying: "Well, the farmer is producing food, and the food has to be cheap, and the consumer has to get cheap food." Now, whether it's for votes or whether it's for happiness or what, I don't know. But the time is coming when farming will be exactly the same as any other business or any other industry. You will buy the acreage that you need to produce what you want to produce to be sold for a profit according to your investment, and that is not what's happening now.

For years and years and years we have been saying to the farmer — keep your prices down, don't charge too much; the American products will come in later and they will get good prices, but you can't when your B.C. products are on the market. Mr. Speaker, that is no way to operate in industry.

Farming as we knew it 30 or 40 years ago is gone. It is a business. It should have an investment, a return on the investment, a return for the hours worked and a decent life for the people in the agricultural community. That is the only way we're going to guarantee ourselves food on the table that we will have to have when the American imports are cut off.

For that reason I'm going to support this bill because this amount of money is necessary right now, but it's only a stopgap as far as I'm concerned, and in the years to come we have got to put the agricultural industry on an industry basis where you put an investment into it, you get an interest back, a return on your hours of work, on your money invested, and not this way of life that they're talking about where you go around with holes in your shoes and supporting people who are getting cheap food.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I hope the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) takes the opportunity of joining the agricultural committee that's going around finding out what's happening in the province, because if that's a statement of the policy of the NDP, then I think the farming community has been sorely misled over the past two years.

We now have the Member for Kamloops standing up and telling us that the farming community is going to stand on its own feet and get off the backs of the taxpayer. I suppose we can next expect the Member

[ Page 3286 ]

for Kamloops to announce the end to farm income assurance and the $12 or $14 million a year that's going to the dairy industry and the $4 or $5 million a year that we expect will be going to the fruit industry, and on and on. And this is to be the new policy of the NDP for the support of agriculture.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You sound like a lawyer.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Absolutely unbelievable.

I suppose the consumers in the province might just as well recognize, too, that the NDP policy, as enunciated by the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), is that they're not going to support any longer the agricultural community. The consumer is going to pay through the nose for every pint of milk and every pound of potatoes he eats or drinks in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Why not?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's the policy of the NDP.

The interesting thing about this particular legislation — and I hope the Minister will deal with it when he closes the debate — is that we are increasing by 300 per cent the amount the Minister is entitled to guarantee for agricultural credit.

I would be pleased if the Minister would indicate the extent to which applications are being received by his department for loans or guarantees under this particular legislation as of any convenient date to him and his department — we could either have this answer now or perhaps when we come to the committee stage which might be more appropriate — which would necessitate the expansion of the Minister's authority by raising the limits from $5 million to $15 million.

I also wonder if the Minister, either now or when we come to the committee stage, could deal specifically with the second part of the amendment, which would appear to give the right to the Minister to reimburse a person who has obtained a loan under this legislation in respective amounts which that person has already paid on account of principal or interest. It would seem that this is a way of discounting to the borrower amounts of money received and repaid. I would like to know the extent to which applications for such discount privileges have been received and the circumstances under which the Minister believes that this discounting should be allowed.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just briefly, I think it's time the Minister told the farmers exactly where they stood in relation to this agricultural credit Act. A month or so ago the Minister stood before the dairymen in Chilliwack, I believe, and told them that this Act was ready to go and it wouldn't be very long before they could go to their bank manager and make direct loans under the terms of this Act. I know dozens and dozens of farmers who have since gone to their bank managers, and their bank managers have said, "What Act?" They don't know anything about it. It's time the Minister levelled with the farmers and told them exactly where they stood.

When we first heard about this Act, somebody spread the rumour among the farmers that they were getting 4 per cent loans. Well, I suggest that's not what they're going to get. In fact, they would be lucky if they get 10 per cent loans, probably, under the terms of this Act, and maybe 12 per cent loans. The Minister is apparently in negotiation right now with the bank managers, attempting to get them to bring the interest rates down. But when are they going to get the opportunity to take advantage of this Act? It has been at least since last October.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), in his attempt to be an apologist for the Minister, is saying that we shouldn't have any special loans. I suppose this is by way of saying that low-interest loans aren't due our farmers of British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You shouldn't need it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Nevertheless, the Minister has told them that's what they are going to get. I don't think we should wait for the committee stage to find out where this whole Act stands.

I would suggest that we're stuck now in a position where we are negotiating with the bank managers in the chartered banks of British Columbia trying to get the best deal we can. The Minister is stuck; the Minister can't get a good deal. I think the farmers are going to be the losers in this whole deal. The farmers are going to get shafted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, again. That's right, Mr. Member. It's about time the Minister levelled with them and told them that they're not going to get any 4 per cent loans, they're not going to get any 6 per cent loans, they're not going to get any 8 per cent loans; they'll be lucky if they get 10 per cent loans.

It's about time the Minister told the bank managers where they stand as well and whether or not the government is going to guarantee those loans and at what interest rate.

But the most important thing, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, perhaps it's going to be 1.25 per cent over prime. That's no big deal for the farmers of British Columbia. Certainly it's time the

[ Page 3287 ]

Minister levelled with the farmers and told them where this government stands in relation to loans under this particular Act. They've been waiting 10, 11 or 12 months now and it's time they found out where they stand. I think the Minister should stand up now and explain to them and level with them.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I listened with a certain degree of pleasure to that Member from somewhere in the Fraser Valley. I was pleased to hear his ringing defence and his attack on the Minister for a 10 months' delay. After all, what's 10 months compared to 20 years?

I find increasingly it's getting more and more difficult for the official opposition to find anything really concrete to criticize this government on. Because I don't recall in the 12 years I sat in opposition one single bill in any attempt to help the farmers of this province in terms of funds. There will be no loans until we pass this bill. If you want to vote against the bill, vote against the bill. But you have no record whatsoever as the Social Credit Party to base any argument.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Member, you have a lot of time to criticize and to call across the floor. If you wish to continue to be rude enough to interfere while others listen to you, fair enough.

But I want to point out to the Members that we have tried as a government and we asked the federal government — and they did agree to it before the election was called — to allow the provincial government to go into the banking business, at least with a percentage. The foundation of Social Credit was to allow for monetary reform. And do we hear any speeches at all from Social Credit on that basis? Not at all. Just cheap, political opposition to a sincere attempt by the Minister to bring about some loans to the farmers which that opposition never attempted to do for the 20 years they were in government.

To come into the House and cry about the 10 months' delay, when they as the official opposition have stalled, stalled, stalled in this session....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well. Absolutely no leadership, absolutely no positive ideas, nothing to offer except negative criticism all session long. When the first bill comes in to help the farmers of this province, what do they do but get up and criticize, criticize, criticize. At least the federal Liberals did make the move; they did make the commitment. I hope whoever wins the next federal election will keep the pledge of that federal government to allow the people of this country to get involved in the banking system directly.

The only problem related to Social Credit is that they've forgotten all about monetary reform.

MRS. JORDAN: Who started a bank?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, who started a bank? Who is it controlled by? Private interests. It isn't truly a people's bank. There's no opportunity for the farmers or the workers of the province to have an expression in that bank. It's very amusing that there's not one positive alternative suggestion by Social Credit other than interruptions and negative, negative criticism. Even this very night, throughout this province, they're split apart over the federal election. They don't know whether or not to join the Tories or run their own candidates. At least the Liberals know where they're going.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Premier address the Chair?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would hope that the Hansard is loud enough tonight to record all the negative comments of that group. They made no effort all the years I was an MLA to help those farmers in the Fraser Valley. Not once, not once. There we have the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) getting up in this House and attacking the Minister who has made the first move to attempt to get a loan programme going in this province for the farmers of this province.

I don't mind hearing any of this....

MR. McCLELLAND: He hasn't done a thing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! He hasn't done a thing. After 20 years of neglect, he's crying about 10 months that they've stalled before they got this legislation to the floor of this House.

The money is available from the revenue of this province to assist the farmers of this province through a loan programme. If they really mean what they say, let them stand up tonight and vote against this bill. That's my challenge to those Members.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I remember very clearly the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture during his estimates dealing with the Agricultural Credit Act, in which he suggested at that time that it was only a matter of a few weeks until the necessary orders-in-council would be passed to make the Act functional. The Minister did release, on November 9, a press release indicating that the Act would be implemented in the very near future. In view of this, several months after he had made this press release

[ Page 3288 ]

indicating that the Act would be functional and had raised the hopes of the farmers of this province, they've been let down and let down badly. In fact, I have in my constituency a few farmers who are concerned with the tremendous delay in the implementation of the Agricultural Credit Act.

One letter which I have received from a small farmer in my constituency expresses the frustration of these farmers. I think it's appropriate at this time to read part of this letter to the committee and ask certain questions of the Minister. The farmer says:

"We're still anxiously awaiting the further information promised in your press release of November 9. Farmers in this area are becoming frustrated and disgusted with the delay in implementation of the proposed programme which held out the only hope of financial assistance that so many of us struggling to develop profitable and economic farm enterprises in this depressed area could hope to attain. I'm sure you're aware of the current manifestation of this dissatisfaction among not only the farmers but trades people in general in the East Kootenays.

"For our own part, we have no wish to alienate ourselves from B.C. or the current government, but are tired of waiting for the much-advertised legislation to be implemented. We're attempting to establish a purebred herd of Swiss Simmental cattle, using an intensive grass management operation to support this on a quarter section."

They've been waiting since the legislation was passed last fall and since the promise the Minister made in his press release on November 9.

In view of the statements made by the Minister during the debate on his estimates this spring, I wrote back and suggested to them...after reading very carefully — not from listening to the Minister, but reading it again from Hansard — what he had said. He said that within the current month.... I wrote back in the month of March. On March 18, I wrote back that the Minister suggested he would pass an order-in-council to make the legislation functional. He suggested that during his estimates. He also suggested at that time that there be adequate advertising in the various newspapers in British Columbia indicating to the farmers of British Columbia that this kind of credit would be available to the agricultural community.

I suggested to these people that I wasn't able to establish the rate of interest that would be applicable to the Agricultural Credit Act, but I hoped that the information would be made available to them in the not too distant future. I also repeated the words uttered by the Minister during his estimates that the forms had not yet been printed — it was only a matter of time. This was primarily the reason why there had been this delay, but the application forms and the rate of interest applicable would be available to them early in the month of April — using the words of the Minister.

Now we find that instead of the application forms being available to them, instead of the press releases indicating to them that the funds were available and the amount of funds that were available, we find that the Minister has not yet passed that critical order-in-council that makes these funds available to the farmers of British Columbia. Instead of that we see the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974.

How much more delay will there be? The farmers in British Columbia, I suppose, are much like the little farmers in my riding who need financial assistance to get purebred cattle going and to establish grass management programmes as well. I think it is time that the Minister levelled and told the people of British Columbia some specific programme regarding the Agricultural Credit Act — whether credit will be available, how much will be available, what the rate of interest will be and when the programmes will be established, and stop the stalling.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I regret that they did not take the opportunity to move adjournment as we offered — at least it would have given them time to have read the bill.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who chose to take on the job of leading the debate, suggested that had it not been for the filibuster carried on by the opposition in this session, it would not have gone on long enough for us to have made the necessary changes. If she had read the amendment and read the legislation she would have seen that we could have operated with the existing legislation, except that this gives a better indication of the direction in which we intend to move. But the legislation in itself would have allowed us to follow the programme. But obviously she didn't take time to read the bill before us or the bill in connection with the legislation.

MR. FRASER: Answer the question. No more guff.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if you want to show guff, as the Member suggests, you may vote against the legislation.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan also had all kinds of suggestions that her years of experience in the House drew to her attention, I suppose, but none of which apparently came to her attention during the time that she was a Minister of the Crown. All those excellent ideas — the interest rates should be limited to 4 per cent; there should be cash grants that would reduce this even more; and there should be

[ Page 3289 ]

discounts; the producers themselves should be able to determine just how long they wanted to defer payment, the principle of deferring it, all this should be left up to the fellow borrowing — then went on to say.... But none of these ideas had occurred to her during all the time that she was a Minister of the Crown.

She then went on to suggest that in her experience producers would rather owe money to the bank than owe money to the government. But never once did she suggest how a producer could go to a bank and get that kind of terms from a bank without government assistance.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The question of just how many letters have I had, how many applications have I had — again, if the Member had taken the opportunity she had to read the amendments, to read the bill, she would have found out that this particular amendment has nothing at all to do with provincial funds for grants; this provides funds for the guarantees.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) had time to read the legislation before he presumed to speak about it, but apparently the spokesman for the official opposition felt it wasn't necessary to read it before standing up to speak, and that doesn't surprise me in that particular instance. There have been no grants paid out of this yet. As many of the Members know, the programme has not been operative.

I regret that we have to stand up today and say that we have not made the programme operative yet. It has not been 10 months — to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) through you, Mr. Speaker — it has been six months since this legislation was passed by the Legislature.

MR. CHABOT: Seven!

HON. MR. STUPICH: And during those six months.... The session adjourned in November; it is now May. It may be June soon, but it is May today.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, how many applications? No applications. It is well known that we have not advertised this programme as being ready yet. Many people are inquiring about it, but not one letter is suggesting that people would rather borrow from a private lending institution than borrow from the government. All of them are asking for cheap money from the government — they don't care where they get it; they want it at a rate they can afford to pay, and I sympathize with that desire. But that is not what the Hon. Member who chose to lead the debate from the official opposition said.

Half a year — in half a year we haven't given you the kind of results that the previous administration didn't even hint at in some 20 years — and they are being impatient. I am impatient too. But your excuse in 20 years was that you were busy doing nothing for the farmers; my excuse for six months was that we were very busy doing something for the farmers.

We introduced other legislation, not just the farm credit legislation. You recall the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, and there have been significant moves with that legislation. You recall the Farm Income Assurance Act that the Members opposite voted against. You all know that the one province in Canada that has not had dairy farmers marching to the legislative buildings, threatening to go on strike, threatening to dump milk — the one province that hasn't had that happen is the Province of British Columbia, because of the legislation we brought in.

You all know that for 18 months the federal Liberal government has been promising to assist the provinces in a programme of farm income stabilization and farm credit legislation. You all know for 18 months they have done absolutely nothing about it.

B.C. is the one province that is determined to go its own route on both farm credit and farm income stabilization, and we have those programmes.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound asked a couple of specific questions: how many applications? None, because we have not yet solicited applications. We have told people, and we will be telling them for a few more days, that we will be advertising it widely as soon as applications are ready.

He suggested one of the amendments that are presented to you now would leave open the possibility of reimbursing people, even for money they have already paid in. That is true, that is one of the possibilities it opens up. Not the only one, but it is one of the possibilities.

The Hon. Member for Langley said the banks don't know anything about it. Now, what the banks choose to tell their own branches is their business. Certainly, the head offices of the banks in British Columbia are well aware of what we are doing and what we are trying to do, because we have been trying to get them to come to some agreement among themselves and with us for some time. We are very close to that agreement now. I know I have said that in Chilliwack, but we are later now and we are that much closer.

I had hoped we would be right on before now, I'm still hoping that within days we will be able to announce the programme. Certainly at the moment I'm assured of cabinet support of this programme, and it will be offered to the farmers in the province of British Columbia. We will be way ahead of any other federal government participation in this.

Because we're not able to specify the rate of

[ Page 3290 ]

interest, as we indicate in this amendment, we are going the guarantee route rather than the direct lending route. However, we will be able to do something for the borrowers. I hope to be able to announce details soon.

How much more delay, Mr. Speaker? The delay is in the hands of the opposition. As the previous Premier used to say: "The government decides when the House convenes; it's up to the opposition to decide how long we're going to be stuck here debating things like this." Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to Hon. Members that it is within the discretion of the Speaker whether a motion leads to a division? In this case I think it is unanimous, and I so declare.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite sure I heard a "no."

M R. SPEAKER: I think it was without contradiction. Would the Hon. Minister of Agriculture please do something with the bill? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you saying that there was no one in this House who was opposed to this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: I couldn't hear any.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then it will be so recorded in the Journals that no one in the House was against the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: It will indicate that, in any event, without the need of a division, because it was without contradiction.

Bill 129, Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the passing of that bill be recorded in the Journals. What's the phrase? — nemine contradicente.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How surprising! Second reading of Bill 79. Perhaps the opposition would like to avoid the embarrassment of a debate.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Bill 79 is, for the most part, an amending aspect to the Act — housekeeping, it's called in general terms here — except for section 4 of this amendment which provides that medical staff committees are protected from liability for damages or other relief if a member of their profession indicates that they have been handling them badly.

Mr. Speaker, what this really means is that staff committees at hospitals, or staff committees reporting to a Minister from time to time have to come down with some criticisms. That criticism might not be too well accepted by the person who is being criticized.

But the medical profession tells me that at the present time they have to be less than candid occasionally in order to protect themselves.

We felt that under these circumstances those people on medical staff committees at hospitals should be protected by legislation from litigation that could arise from some criticism of their colleagues. We feel that this opens up, as opposed to closes up, the committee criticism aspect of the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that that is the only aspect of this bill that really bears debate. The rest of it, as I said, is housekeeping amendments. Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm very interested in the comments of the Minister because one of the privileges of being a physician is that you are very often called upon to take part in committee work which involves evaluation of your fellow physician. That can be a very difficult and a very serious responsibility.

I respect the Minister's candour and frankness in making it plain that this in fact is the main thrust of the amendment under section 4. Perhaps when he winds up the debate, I would be interested to know first of all if the organized medical profession, through the B.C. Medical Association or through the college, specifically asked the Minister for this amendment.

I'm asking him what was the kind of experience that has been quoted in the past to justify asking for this amendment. It is a very serious amendment. It carries tremendous import. Doctors, like anybody else, are very human, and this does, in my view, open the door to the possibility that a doctor on a committee could take an action or express an opinion very detrimental to another doctor for which the doctor on the committee need not be responsible in court.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters or to make life more difficult for the Minister of Health, but I think we all realize that some of these decisions taken in

[ Page 3291 ]

committee could have a devastating effect on the professional future of another physician.

While I feel certain that in the vast majority of cases these decisions are taken in good faith and are founded on solid fact and serious consideration by the physicians concerned, I think it does give a physician on a hospital committee tremendous protection to be able to recommend to the hospital board that certain decisions be made in respect to another physician and that the physician on the committee have complete protection under law from any litigation.

There may be examples which prove that this is necessary. I personally am not aware of them. I've participated in a great deal of committee work in hospital, and I happen to think that doctors make these decisions in committee based on the facts and on their own conviction and on the evidence presented to them.

But this indeed is giving doctors on hospital committees a very substantial degree of protection in law against litigation for decisions which might very seriously affect the capacity of another physician to continue his practice — particularly in the hospital.

I'm sure that the Minister would not bring in this bill without a lot of consideration. But I would be very interested to know, first of all, has he specifically been asked by the medical profession to bring in this amendment? If so, on what kind of basis of experience has the profession justified such a request?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to hear what the Member for Oak Bay has said with regard to the need for care in the operation of these communities, but I think that the other side of the coin is every bit as important.

Heretofore there have been grounds to suspect that committees of medical men, by reason of the consequences which their reports and recommendations may have, have been obliged to extend to physicians and surgeons privileges beyond that which they are entitled to have or to expect in the proper conduct of their profession and in the care of their patients.

If anything, I would think that the amendment which we have before us is more directed to improving the standard of medical practice and the care the patients receive than it is to be concerned with any consequences which there may be upon a medical practitioner. In this respect I think we should applaud this legislation.

I'm certain that a medical committee which is obviously composed of more than one individual will take very carefully into consideration the consequences which their recommendation may have upon any individual practitioner.

Surely a committee composed of a practitioner's peers is his best protection against abuse. But if that committee, in its wisdom, finds that a practitioner has exceeded his responsibilities or failed in his responsibilities, then I think they should be free to speak out without fear of being involved in some legal liability for the conduct of the responsibility which is truly outside that of the profession.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just rise to support the bill. I think it's clear that a medical staff committee is made up of more than one person, more than one member of the medical staff. It's the kind of protection that each of the members deserves should they be asked to evaluate honestly. I think the Minister should be commended for bringing in the amendment, and the official opposition supports it.

HON. MR. COCKE: In answer to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), yes, the medical profession is quite aware of this bill. As a matter of fact, I'm not quite sure where it was initiated, but it certainly has been fully discussed.

I certainly won't stand here and detail areas that we suspect — where there has been sort of an amelioration or modification of a decision by virtue of the fact that people were afraid, but there has always been that decision. Now we know that there won't be the legal necessity for anybody to not speak their mind.

As the Member for Langley and the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound outlined, it is a committee; it's not as if one person is judging another. These committees have been heretofore somewhat nervous. We felt that we would go along with this, and if there are any abuses in the future, certainly it will be very carefully watched. I can't really think that there would be. I believe that we want to have the best working committees we can have in the hospital. Doctors argue just like everybody else, and on that basis I think they should be very carefully supervised by their peers, and this just gives that much more latitude in supervision.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 79, Hospital Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3292 ]

REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 104 is an amendment to the Regional Hospital Districts Act. The purpose of this bill is first to broaden the scope of the capital financing which can be made available by regional hospital districts and the government under the present shared basis so that health facilities other than hospitals can be constructed or acquired. In other words, we're thinking now in terms of health care as being just a little bit broader than hospital care. We're thinking in terms of other means of affording health care in the community; therefore it might mean that an intermediate-care facility be contemplated, it could mean a health or a mental health unit, or it could mean a community health centre or something along that line.

Secondly, the present requirements of obtaining the assent of the owner-electors before capital financing can be provided is being eliminated with this bill, the same as it's being eliminated in the Department of Education. We feel that we have to put some safeguards here, that capital borrowing cannot be undertaken without the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That, I think, is the safeguard we're looking for here.

Thirdly, a number of necessary revisions of a housekeeping nature are being made to improve and clarify the administrative procedures that must be carried out under the Regional Hospital Districts Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the particular provision which will eliminate the need for a vote by the owner-electors. I personally favour this bill and support it, but I think it's important that the feelings of certain citizens in other parts of this province are very strong. In particular I've heard through letters from Port Hardy of citizens who feel that the degree to which hospital facilities are planned and organized in that region is such that they feel they want to have a continuing opportunity to approve or disapprove further expenditures of taxpayers' money for the provision of hospital facilities.

I personally feel that the bill is sound. In my own view of things and my experience in the Capital Regional District, and I'll try not to be bitter, but in the experience locally, I think that is just one more hurdle on top of inadequate initiative and planning that we have in the capital region.

I am quite happy to approve this bill, which makes it possible for the planning to go ahead with the raising of funds or the disbursing of funds without referendum.

In fairness to the people in Port Hardy — and he obviously knows a great deal more about that area than I do, since he smiles — could the Minister give us some reassurance, or could he perhaps explain what safeguard, if any, people in regions of the province might have when they are not happy about the performance of their regional board? What alternative methods of expressing their disapproval do they have other than, I presume, voting against the municipal officials the next time around?

I just want it to be on record that there's a very substantial expression of disapproval of this bill by the people in that region. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take the opportunity to explain to the Member for Oak Bay, as well as to the rest of the House, the problem that exists in Port Hardy, and the reason that all of the MLAs have received a letter from Port Hardy on this issue.

The Member for Oak Bay indicates that he thinks the bill is a sound one, and I would agree that this is a sound bill. I think the people in Port Hardy would also agree that the bill is a sound one.

The problem that exists in Port Hardy is that the area has grown so quickly that they feel they are now underrepresented on the regional board and they do not have the vote they would like to have, based on their current population. As you are aware, the representatives on the regional board are determined by the last census and are not done on a daily basis. That is the big objection that the people on the north end of the island have now. I don't think it is so much towards the fact that they will not have a referendum as such, but that they are concerned about their representation on the regional board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'm a little puzzled by the previous speaker's comments, Mr. Speaker. I have the letter from Brian Klaver, mayor of the District of Port Hardy. He says in this letter, dated May 16, 1974:

"From our experience from the Mount Waddington Regional Board, we feel that the best interests of the people of this regional district will not be served by allowing the board to construct hospital facilities without asking the people."

A very different point than the one made by the hon. lady Member who just spoke. I can understand, we all understand the other thing she talked about, but the letter that came was directly on point, and said: "...we feel that the best interests of the people of this regional district will not be served by allowing the board to construct hospital facilities without asking the people." Now that's what he said, and it strikes me that he's got a principle there which is fairly important.

The government is consistent in taking powers

[ Page 3293 ]

away from local authorities. Perhaps in this case they should, if it can be justified in terms of previous experience. I don't think the Minister's made the case at the present time, with due respect to him, and I trust he will be explaining why it is necessary to take that power away from the board and what really difficult problems he's out to solve by this legislation when he speaks closing this debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the question of Port Hardy was brought up and....

Interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: There go the tapes.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that question was brought up. The Member for Comox understands full well what's happening up there. I'm sure the people in Port Hardy, that is the mayor and his council, are not so much motivated toward...or at least don't look at this bill in a way that they would like to see it forever forgotten. But at the moment, at this moment in time, they're very much concerned about their representation on the regional district and are afraid.

Mr. Speaker, the Member over there says that's not what he says. We know what they say, because those people have been in my office on a number of occasions. We've discussed the whole question with the people in the area.

Let me tell you what the conflict is. At the present time, the total area will not support more than one relatively major hospital. The major hospital now — and has been for some time — has been planned for Port McNeill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, no, no, no. You've got a different regional district. The major hospital is being planned for Port McNeill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, no, maybe it's iffy. The people in Port Hardy feel it should be there or that they should have a fair facility in Port Hardy. These questions will be all be resolved between the regional district and the Minister of Health. I can assure the people at Port Hardy that they will have their day in court. The regional district does not have the last word as to whether or not the facilities will be built or when they are going to be built.

I think it is clearly a case that we cannot react to one small area in the province and do away with what is really required legislation, in our minds. These regional plebiscites have to be done away with. They are not reflecting the needs of the communities at all. They are emotional responses to political efforts. We don't think that's the way to deliver health care.

All I can say to people of Port Hardy is that we assure them fair play, as we assure the rest of that regional district of Mount Waddington fair play.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 104, Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.