[ Page 3453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964, Between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company, and Her Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 145). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 3453

Oral questions

Report on conflict of interest on part of Highways engineer. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3453

Municipal Affairs entourage on Iron Curtain trip. Mr. Fraser — 3453

Increased wages for prison inmates. Mr. Wallace — 3453

Reduction of gasoline taxes. Mr. Morrison — 3453

Government's intention to lease or rent Scott Block. Mr. Chabot — 3454

Present role of members of proposed police commission. Mr. Curtis — 3454

Strip mining in southeast B.C. Mr. Wallace — 3454

Violation of Landlord and Tenant Act. Mr. Chabot — 3455

Progress of negotiations in construction dispute. Mr. Gibson — 3455

Government purchase of Inner Harbour property. Mr. Morrison — 3455

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 11).

Committee, report and third reading — 3456

Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13).

Committee, report and third reading — 3456

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 4).

Committee, report and third reading — 3457

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3457

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Mr. Wallace — 3457

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3457

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3458

Report stage — 3458

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65).

Committee, report and third reading — 3458

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3458

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

On section 6.

Ms. Sanford — 3458

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3458

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Curtis — 3459

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3459

Mr. Wallace — 3459

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3460

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3460

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3461

Mr. Curtis — 3461

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3461

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3462

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3462

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 3463

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3464

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Curtis — 3464

Mr. Wallace — 3464

Mr. Morrison — 3465

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3465

Mr. Fraser — 3466

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3466

Division on amendment to section 6 — 3466

On section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3466

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3467

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3467

Report stage — 3467

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

Committee, report and third reading — 3467

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

On section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3468

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3468

Report and third reading — 3468

Debtor Assistance Act (Bill 77). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3468

Mr. Phillips — 3469

Hon. Ms. Young — 3470

Trade Practices Act (Bill 126). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3470

Mr. Phillips — 3472

Mr. Gibson — 3472

Hon. Ms. Young — 3473

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 139). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3473

Mr. Phillips — 3474

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3474

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3474

Pharmacy Act (Bill 106). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3475

Mr. McClelland — 3475

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3475

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 89). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3475

Mr. Gardom — 3477

Mr. Rolston — 3477

Mr. McClelland — 3478

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3478

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3478

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3478

Introduction: Presentation of Commonwealth parliamentary delegation to the House.

Mr. Speaker — 3482

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3482

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from the Moscrop Junior Secondary School in the heart of Burnaby-Willingdon, with their teachers, Bill Waters, Sharon Hall and John Wiebe.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier of British Columbia I'd like to introduce two constituents of his and a niece and nephew of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Willis. Mrs. Willis was Miss Vancouver some years ago.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT
BEARING DATE THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1964, BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT,
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN HER RIGHT
OF HER PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964, Between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company, and Her Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 145 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.

Oral questions.

REPORT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
ON PART OF HIGHWAYS ENGINEER

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I say to the House that the department has received the report that was asked about yesterday from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). It's in the Department being vetted. I didn't know that yesterday, and I wish to apologize to the House. I will be looking at it as soon as I have a recommendation from my officers.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ENTOURAGE
ON IRON CURTAIN TRIP

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Has the Minister invited Jim Campbell, chairman of the Capital Regional District and a noted Saturna Island sheep farmer, to accompany him on his rapid transit trip to Europe and certain other points beyond the Iron Curtain?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I haven't invited Jim Campbell. I've invited the regional district to send a representative and I understand that Jim Campbell is coming as their representative. Also, I have asked the Vancouver Regional District for a representative if they wish to send someone as well.

MR. FRASER: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: has anybody else from the municipal field been invited other than those you've mentioned?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

INCREASED WAGES
FOR PRISON INMATES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, in view of the recent approval of a federal policy to pay $2.20 an hour to working prison inmates in the federal system, if similar action is under consideration in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. I'm not familiar with the federal programme so I can't tell you that it's under consideration at the provincial level, but I will look into the matter.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Attorney-General at least tell us whether there's any further consideration being given to the situation in Riverview which was recently uncovered where patients were being paid a very minimal amount of money for work done?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: (Mike not on)… Department of Health, I think, Mr. Speaker.

REDUCTION OF
GASOLINE TAXES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Premier as Minister of Finance. In view of the announced reduction in gasoline taxes by the Province of Manitoba, could the Minister of Finance now advise the House if he has any similar announcements to make at this time to the people of British Columbia?

[ Page 3454 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I hope by Friday of this week to be able to make an announcement. If I'm not in the House I'll make it somewhere in the province, I hope.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION TO
LEASE OR RENT SCOTT BLOCK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Public Works: does the government intend leasing or renting the Scott Block on the corner of Hillside and Douglas where long-time tenants are presently being kicked out on the street?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, if the tenants are being evicted we know nothing about it. We have plans for neither of the questions which he asked.

PRESENT ROLE OF MEMBERS
OF PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General: are any individuals who have been named to serve on the proposed provincial police commission which will be established under Bill 91, the Police Act, now functioning in any capacity in the Attorney-General's department?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. John Hogarth is, of course, a consultant. He has been working for some months in terms of the preparation of the new Police Act as well as in consultation with police forces and other interested bodies. Gordon Cunningham of the RCMP, because of his position as assistant commissioner in British Columbia and also in consultative work in connection with the new Police Act could be considered to be working with the department at the present time. Reverend Burroughs — I don't think so because he's still, I believe, a member of the Vancouver Police Commission.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. A supplementary. Is it a fact, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, that a number of duties or activities which will be under the general direction of the proposed provincial police commission are now being carried out in the absence of legislative authority?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the preparation for some of the studies would certainly be underway through the department and, as I say, under the auspices of John Hogarth and the justice development committee. They're not, of course, under the umbrella of the Police Act, because the Police Act has not been passed by the Legislature. But some of the studies are already underway. As for the outline of their future activities, work is being done in that connection.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Premier, Minister of Finance, rugby player and one-time ball pitcher. In view of the tremendous demand for energy in the world and in view of the increased demand for good coking coal, has the Premier made any further progress towards finding a partner for the development of the Sukunka Coal fields in the great Peace River area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to tell that Member that we're still in the ball game.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question dealing with the use of police to provide confidential reports to the liquor authorities on hotels in the Vancouver area.

He indicated in his answer that he was unaware of the representations. I wonder whether he's had a chance to check his correspondence to find a letter of April 4, 1974, referring to a conversation that he had with a lawyer by the name of A.L. Vanderhorst, and whether he can now inform us what the practice in future will be with respect to the use of police forces to carry out confidential investigations for the liquor authorities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice also. I looked for my Pinks because the Hon. Member asked a question, and I believe the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) yesterday asked a question; I didn't find my Pinks, which I usually check out to remind me of these questions. I'll take it as notice till tomorrow.

STRIP MINING
IN SOUTHEAST B.C.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines if he's aware of the serious statements that have been made by two government biologists about the serious environmental damage being done by strip mining in southeast British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll take that as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, could I then ask the Minister whether at the present time in his department there is any particular study

[ Page 3455 ]

going on on the subject of strip mining and its environmental consequences?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Land Use Committee is continually dealing with this question of environment. In regard to strip mining, we have our reclamation experts working on that all the time.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that these are also government biologists who are making this very serious criticism. Do they have input, or have there been any recent meetings which these biologists or their confreres have been consulting with the Land Use Committee on this particular issue in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know what biologists you're talking about, but I take it that it was an article in the paper, and they've got a privilege to speak out as they see fit, I'd say.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member supply that information to the Minister so that he may check that out?

VIOLATION OF
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Housing: can the Minister advise on what authority the B.C. Housing Management Commission is threatening to violate the Landlord and Tenant Act in the rent freeze by their letter of April 30 to tenants? It states as follows:

"It is not our intention to increase the rent, but if it becomes necessary to replace a roof or a heating unit, et cetera, the rent would be increased in sufficient amount and amortized over the remaining years to recover the required replacement or repair."

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: It could be substantially more as well.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'd like to have the Member send me a copy of the letter, and we could look into this. I don't know in what area this is taking place, whether it's in Vancouver or Victoria or other places.

MR. CHABOT: Both places. Could I table this letter that's been sent…?

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest the Hon. Member has no right to table it as a private Member, but I would suggest that the Hon. Member might transmit it to the Minister for reply tomorrow.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You could with leave, if you ask.

MR. CHABOT: Could I have leave to table it? It is sent out to tenants…. I received it this noon.

Leave granted.

PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister can advise us of any developments, either positive or negative, in the progress of the construction negotiations.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no advice to give the House other than that negotiations are still continuing. The only reports I have received are positive ones and they were through the media which were available to any other Member of the House.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE
OF INNER HARBOUR PROPERTY

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Is the government negotiating with Marathon Realty for the purchase of any of the property in the Inner Harbour now?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental then. Could the Minister please advise us of the state of the negotiations at this moment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll take notice on that as there is more than one, and the negotiations are continuing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. As this is critical to the public hearings which the government itself is sponsoring tomorrow evening, may I ask the Minister whether he will provide full information by way of a statement on motions tomorrow afternoon so we can have some idea of government's intentions with respect to the south side of the harbour which is critical to discussions of the Reid Centre?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a

[ Page 3456 ]

perfectly ridiculous statement, as we expect from this quarter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to that remark. Tomorrow afternoon the government is having public hearings, and according to their radio advertising these will determine future development of the Reid Centre for which the province has paid many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars. These discussions cannot take place intelligently without some idea….

MR. SPEAKER: Is this debate that the Hon. Member is indulging in, or a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then I'll ask a supplementary question. Is it true that while the Minister has dilly-dallied over the Marathon Realty property, the price has gone up from $1.4 million to $2.3 million?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Victoria has covered two or three properties. I would like to tell him just this on the Reid property, seeing he raised it. Yes, a cabinet committee met with Mayor Pollen, and we agreed to buy the Reid property either on our own or jointly with the City of Victoria. The only point of difference was that we felt we should try to get as good a price as possible because we knew that the development permit was running out and this is a minus, not a plus. So we said we'd like to get the best price, but we will buy it.

In less than a week, the mayor of Victoria called a special meeting, said nothing to us, and allowed Sandy Reid to peddle his development permit that could add up to $1 million on that property. He let us and the people of Victoria down in so doing.

I find it very ironic when I pick up the most recent edition of the Journal of Commerce where they write: "Reid Holdings Sold" and it states that when Mr. Pollen was an alderman, he defeated Courtenay Haddock on the strength of promising to cut Reid down to his size. I think Mayor Pollen cut the City of Victoria and this government down by pulling that sort of an underhanded deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now as far as Marathon property…we are in the process of negotiations. I have stated to the opposition before that it's not in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province, the people of the City of Victoria or the Members to divulge what is going on until we have consummated the deal. We'll give you the full facts and figures, and if you want to see the cancelled cheques, you can see them too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your argument to the Minister and Mayor Pollen is irrelevant to the question as to whether or not you can have meaningful discussions with the public tomorrow evening when we don't know what their future guarantees for property purchasing are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member not indulge in speeches.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 11.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Income Tax Amendment. Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

PROBATE FEES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 3457 ]

Bill 13, Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive as amended approved.

On section 5.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I don't rise to raise any particular criticism to section 5 as it is amended; but yesterday when we had second reading on the debate, the Minister indicated that they would be sending information bulletins abroad in the province so that people might recognize their eligibility for this tax deferment.

I would just like to say that I trust that the information bulletins will encourage people who may fall within the eligibility classification to take very careful advice as to the consequences of their deferment so that this decision, which may have an effect on their future dealings with respect to property, will not place them at some disadvantage.

We all welcome the flexibility which this legislation provides. I just think that some warning should be included: that people should consider this as carefully as they would any other significant business transaction that they take with regard to their property.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have instructed the department to ensure that the explanation accompanying this bill and the benefits, if the homeowner wishes to take advantage of them, are clearly spelled out as well as the consequences and the exact nature of the programme itself. But I want again to publicly emphasize the fact that this bill is a help to some people. I don't want anyone in the province to get turned off because of irresponsible statements from the Leader of the Opposition.

As I understand it, the pamphlet outlining the benefits of this bill will be completed within three weeks. It is being considered to do a straight householder mailing to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to examine just what the consequences are.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, on section 5(4)1 just wanted some clarification from the Premier in light of the statement he made very clearly yesterday refuting the possibility of the amount of taxes to be deferred exceeding the actual value of the property. In subsection (4)(a) there is a paragraph which in effect says just that — that where the actual value of the property determined by the assessor is less than the outstanding tax liability and charges, no deferral agreement can be made.

Does this really relate or is it intended to relate to a situation which may arise a few years after taxes being deferred? I can't understand how the actual value of the property right off the bat could be less than taxes outstanding.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't see any situation, Mr. Member…. Certainly once an agreement is entered into, this would not be retroactive.

[ Page 3458 ]

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive as amended approved.

On section 8.

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 8 to 20 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Real Property Tax Deferment Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 112, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 112; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In the definition of general affairs, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Hon. Minister could elaborate. It seems to clearly restrict general affairs to matters dealing with islands. I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not in his view the section Includes matters which affect islands and also non-island areas, because the actions may do just that. There seems to be an exclusion here of any matter which may affect a designated island and also part of the mainland.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The intention is that it only affects the islands, not the mainland.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

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

Amendment approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive as amended approved.

On section 6.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): On section 6, Mr. Chairman. Section 6(2) refers to the requirements for building permits, which must be approved by the trust according to that section. But it also makes provision for the trust to grant exemption from that particular provision. I wonder if the Minister would elaborate for us as to when the trust might exempt the islanders from that particular subsection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think that in certain areas and under certain conditions it may be advantageous and more reasonable for the trust to allow the building of structures without a permit from it. I would leave the decision on whether or not a particular area should be left alone — maybe it's an area which has no building code and that sort of thing

[ Page 3459 ]

— with the option that the trust would find out itself which areas should be left out of this provision.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, in section 6(4) I think we see clearly the double standard which is to be found throughout this bill. I believe it is a most regrettable situation. In subsection (4) we have an instance where:

"The Crown in right of the province, or an agency of the Crown as defined in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, shall not develop or dispose of land situated within the trust area unless the Crown or the Crown agency first gives notice of the development or disposition to the general trustees."

One of the points that I understood to have been made very clearly by the all-party committee which produced a report last year was that there was a need for coordination between various Crown agencies and government departments. Indeed, we spoke of this as did other Members in debate on second reading.

It seems rather pointless to establish a trust which will have sweeping powers over individuals, private companies and residents of the Gulf Islands and yet the Crown agencies — B.C. Ferry Authority, B.C. Hydro and so on — will, as I interpret this, simply have to notify the trust that it intends to develop or sell some land or run another very ugly series of power lines over a particular island. If it is fair for the trust to have authority over the individual and over private people then surely it is fair for the trust to have the authority of veto over a Crown agency.

I recognize that the trust cannot be superior to the Crown itself, but most certainly a Crown agency should not be able to simply fire off a letter to the trust indicating that as of next November, or whenever, it is going to proceed with a development which might be completely contrary to the intent of this Legislature and, most importantly, to the intent of the trust.

For that reason I have a motion to amend section 6(4) by deleting all of the words after the word "unless" in the third line and substituting the words: "the Crown first gives notice of the development or disposition to the general trustees and, in the case of a Crown agency, first receives the approval of the trust with respect to any such development or disposition." I so move.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, the government is unable to accept this amendment. I would explain in this particular paragraph that the amendment gives a veto power to the trust over all other Crown agencies and Crown departments. This section is here so that in actual practice there will be consultation with the local trust group, whether it is a trust committee or whether it is the general trust. As a result there should be complete co-operation and coordination between the separate departments, the Crown agencies and the trust itself.

That was one of the recommendations, I think, that came out of the committee. In my opinion this fulfils the request of the all-party committee which made the recommendation in the first place.

Obviously, what will happen is that any Crown agency or any department of the government will be in consultation with the trust before such actions as a power line or a new highway or whatever are taken.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That is a very disappointing answer from the Minister. As he knows, when he sat on this side of the House, the promise of consultation and co-operation and all the other words you can use which imply that two parties to a situation will talk with each other was a story we often heard from the former government. But certain arms of that government and certain Crown agencies nevertheless went ahead and did exactly what they liked. B.C. Hydro certainly has to have the worst record in that regard.

We raised a matter here in the House the other day, to which I never got an answer, when I inquired about the Minister of Transport and Communications' plans for a ferry terminal on Gabriola Island, to pick that as an example. I got no answer to that question.

As the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has pointed out, this piece of legislation and this particular section 6 is setting a very clear precedent in the Province of British Columbia. I don't want to repeat all of the arguments we put forward in second reading but basically we in this party and, I think, on this side of the House are very perturbed that government, perhaps with the best of intentions, is attempting to tell a certain part of the population of this province in a certain part of this province what is good for them. In so doing, they are granting powers to a group of three people appointed by government to completely control, for example in section 6(2), the construction or enlargement of building premises.

As the Member for Saanich and the Islands pointed out so well, if this kind of new power and veto and control is to be applied to each and every citizen in the area of British Columbia concerned, why should not the same kind of control apply to arms and agencies of government?

We've heard so many times in this House, in different departmental debates, of the great difficulty encountered by the individual or groups of individuals in getting the kind of co-operation and consultation which the Minister promises. While the Minister's genuine intent is to consult and co-operate, there should be some kind of protection in this section of the bill to a much more reliable degree

[ Page 3460 ]

than exists in the language we have quoted, namely, "The Crown in right of the province…shall not develop or dispose of land…unless (it) first gives notice of the development…."

On this side of the House, based on experience of the past, we don't feel that just giving notice is a satisfactory action by any agency of the government when, in point of fact, every other individual who lives in the area to come under the jurisdiction of this legislation has t o obtain approval of a government-appointed group of three people. It is the kind of legislation we have talked about in other respects, in the Land Commission Act and the Energy Commission and a few other bills before this House, where we have people appointed by government, given a great deal of authority over the lives and some of the rights and freedoms of the individual and yet there seems to be a double standard. The standard to be applied to arms and agencies of the Crown is a little different from the standards to be applied to the individual.

It is my personal feeling that this bill exemplifies this sad double standard to perfection. We are taking a completely different approach to agencies and arms of the Crown than we are taking to citizens of this province. It's the old story, in my view, that this government seem to think that the individual is here to serve the state instead of the other way around: the state is here to serve the individual.

This is another clearcut example of giving freedom of action and authority and control and power to three individuals appointed by the cabinet who can tell any individual on the Gulf Islands concerned what he may or may not do with his property. Subsection 2 makes that unmistakably clear. Then, when we get down to subsection 4 which we are trying to amend — and this is why I'm so strongly in favour of the Member for Saanich and the Islands' amendment — we find that Crown agencies do not have to come within the purview and the control or even the recommendations of this committee of trustees.

If we had some happier examples to refer to in the history of the previous administration in particular, and even with this administration, we would perhaps be more prepared to conclude that the Minister's reassurances about consultation were adequate. I feel very strongly that the kind of amendment this party is putting forward and the fair play which it would encompass to anyone, Crown agency or citizen, trying to carry out any development on the islands just makes sound common sense.

It seems to me that, while the Minister has said there will be cooperation and consultation, subsection 4 as written simply means a Crown agency can give notice to the trustees. The three trustees could be unanimously opposed to what the agency of the Crown wants to do — for example, build a ferry terminal and create more traffic on a certain island or build highways or something of this nature. The government is not really being sincere in following up in written legislation what it espouses in word, both in the House and outside of the House.

I think this is a very reasonable amendment and I would hope the Minister would reconsider.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I too would like to support the amendment and urge the Minister to reconsider his rejection of it. I don't wish to go back into the debate in principle but I must, in commenting upon this amendment, refer the Minister and ask him to consider the wording of section 3(1). It clearly states that the whole purpose of establishing this islands trust, in which the general trustees are essentially the governing body, is to preserve and protect the unique amenities and environment of the trust area, these designated islands.

All Members on all sides of the House, even though they may have criticized the legislation, were in support of the committee's recommendation that something had to be done in order to look after these unique islands which we have under consideration. Yet we find, when the government wishes to deal with those lands, it need not subject itself to the consideration of any trustees, general or local.

When you consider that on Saltspring Island the majority of the persons employed are government employees with ferry service, they have the greatest interest in the continuation of the activities of that employer. Yet if the ferry service, for example, wishes to take any action with regard to development on the island or the disposition of any lands, they need not subject themselves to any examination by the trustees.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Point of order. I believe this amendment is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ruling on the point of order, I would say the point of order is well taken.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, why is it well taken, Mr. Chairman? We've been having a debate here. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has spoken; the Minister has refused it, not raising a point of order. The Minister said, "It's out of order." Well, on what basis?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated while I make the comment necessary. Unfortunately, the amendment was given to us without notice and we've been looking through the authorities in order to establish the basis on

[ Page 3461 ]

which it should be either in or out of order. We have now done that.

The particular amendment is one which takes away some power from the Crown or restricts the power of the Crown in some way. Therefore, an amendment in this House that would do that must be introduced by a Member of the cabinet. I would refer to the Speaker's decision, November 24, 1939, when Mr. N.W. Whittaker was Speaker, in which he ruled that any amendment, bill or a motion which impinges upon Crown prerogatives must be introduced only with the consent of a Member of the Crown, or by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Member who introduced this bill, clearly anticipating the problem you have indicated, took great pains to point out that he in no way intended to alter or change or impinge upon the privileges of the Crown. He took some time to explain to us that he was talking only of Crown agencies and that the Crown itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: We never heard that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …would remain intact. Its privileges, its immunities, its benefits — God knows what else — would remain intact, but Crown agencies such as B.C. Hydro, such as B.C. Ferry Authority, which, as my hon. friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out, is the largest single employer on Saltspring Island, would be bound by the provisions of the Act.

Therefore, I think the ruling given by you, with deference, Mr. Chairman, failed to take into account that there was in the statement made by the Member a specific exemption of the Crown and a reference only to Crown agencies.

There is an enormous amount of precedent in the area of what constitutes government agencies and what government and state corporations constitute the state. This is mostly to do with international law when you're dealing with shipping companies owned by governments. There are thousands of cases of precedent in this area and they all tend towards the argument that the Crown itself is not the agency and there is a distinction.

In a situation such as this, the amendment would be certainly in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would refer to the amendment as submitted words. The motion is "To amend section 6(4) by deleting all of the words after the word 'unless' in the third line and substituting the words: 'the Crown first gives notice of the development or disposition…."' It would appear from the wording that this is some action of the Crown and therefore the amendment then impinges upon….

MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. You haven't read it carefully. I recited the subsection as it appears in the Act to help you in making your ruling. It does not change until we get to the words "…and, in the case of a Crown Agency, first receives…." I've taken the earlier wording precisely from the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continuing on the point of order, my interpretation of the amendment would be that this does, in fact, in some way bind the Crown, whether it's the Crown itself or a Crown agency.

I would request that, unless the Hon. Member can provide evidence to the contrary, then the ruling will stand. It is something which requires the Crown's action; therefore, any amendment coming from a private Member would…. The point is, if the Hon. Member can produce evidence that binding a Crown agency does not in some way bind the Crown, then we would reconsider. However, my ruling is that it does, in fact, bind the Crown even though it is the Crown agency. Therefore, I would rule the amendment out of order.

MR. CURTIS: Then I must challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee an amendment was introduced by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I ruled that this amendment was out of order on the grounds that it impinged upon Crown prerogatives. My ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, The question before the House is whether the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

[ Page 3462 ]

NAYS — 13

The House in committee on Bill 112; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the ruling just upheld by the House — your ruling — was that somehow or another the Crown's rights, privileges, et cetera, could be affected by the amendment in question. While we argue the point, we accept the ruling of the whole House.

Therefore I would like to put an amendment which would simply delete the words: "or an agency of the Crown as defined in the Public Service Labour Relations Act." This in no way could affect the Crown because the Crown, after all, is not a Crown agency, and vice versa. It would, indeed, give protection for the islands and the islanders, as talked about so glowingly under section 3(l), "objects of the trust," and I would like to put an amendment on which you can consult with the Law Clerk as to whether or not it is in order. I'm sure it is, because there is a distinction between the Crown in right of British Columbia and an agency of the Crown.

The reason why it is necessary is precisely the same reason for which the previous amendment had merit, and that is that we are now setting up a situation in which in cases where the Crown agencies themselves take steps to do something which is contrary, and only in cases where it is contrary to the objects of the Act, they will be permitted to act regardless of this island trust, regardless of the trustees, regardless of the wishes of the local inhabitants, because, Mr. Chairman, as you know, in cases where they are acting in accordance with the objectives of the trust they would automatically get permission.

This joker clause here in section 6(4) which the government inserted is simply to exempt them in cases where they are acting contrary to the objectives of the trust. That is all it is for, and that is why we think not only the Crown agencies but also the Crown should be bound by this Act and that this subsection (4) should be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Before the Hon. Member continues I would make a ruling on whether the amendment is in order or not in order. I would rule it out of order on the same grounds as the previous amendment, and that is that leaving the words in would give something to the agency of the Crown which, in turn, gives something, retains certain powers for the Crown. Taking the words out, then, would take this away, which again would impinge upon the prerogatives of the Crown. Therefore I rule this amendment out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I think the distinction has not been properly made between the Crown agency and the Crown itself. To extend your argument one step further — and I think I have to do that so that I can show you where the failure of logic is — would be to say that we, for example, could not put in amendments affecting British Columbia Telephone because, of course, the government owns shares, and if you affect the company you'll affect the government's financial position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows the rules of the House. He knows that a ruling is a ruling and the only thing he may do is challenge it. He may not debate it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would hate to think that you, a man of good will, would take such a narrow interpretation of the rules. You're a man who is open to persuasion by logic, you're a man who….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've allowed the Hon. Member some latitude already, but I must follow the rules of the House in committee, and therefore I rule this amendment out of order. The Member has only one recourse and that is to challenge the ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, may I have a definitive statement of yours then on the whole question of whether or not, when questions of doubt arise as to the interpretation of our rules or interpretations such as this, you yourself will not listen to arguments from either side of the House before making a definitive judgment?

We're arriving at a situation where perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you are basing your decision on good advice and your own good judgment. However, it's just possible that somewhere in the other 54 Members of the House there are one or two little grains of wisdom which might affect your mind, and you're a man who's known to be willing to change his mind if it's shown he's wrong.

What I would like to know from you on this point of order is at what point your decision becomes such a binding one that the only alternative is not to appeal to your logic but to appeal to the illogical government majority that supports you. It's an important point to the opposition.

[ Page 3463 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're getting into a prolonged debate. The Chair has been lenient on this point because it is a new point, certainly, in our experience here in this particular Legislature. However, having listened to some of the arguments previously that were presented and having consulted some of the authorities, I have made a ruling.

I ruled the previous amendment out of order, and it was upheld by the House. I ruled this amendment out because the impact is the same, and that is that it takes something away from this particular bill which is, in effect, taking something away from an agency of the Crown and from the Crown itself. Therefore I have ruled it out of order. The Hon. Member may challenge the ruling, but we should not continue this debate.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just to clear that up, does that mean that any amendment which would remove something from a government bill is taking away from a government prerogative?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Each amendment is considered by itself, separately, when it is proposed. However, in this case I've ruled that the particular force of the amendment would take something away from a Crown agency and through that from the Crown, and therefore impinges upon Crown prerogatives. Therefore any such amendment must be introduced with the consent of the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

The Hon. Member in section 6 can debate the matter in a general way, but he cannot propose an amendment. An amendment of this particular nature must be introduced by the consent of the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, during your remarks a few moments ago you indicated that, based upon authority, you were holding that a Crown agency was identical with the Crown. I wonder if you would be good enough to advise the committee of your authority for that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have made the ruling that in my judgment impinging upon a Crown agency is impinging upon the Crown in legislation. Therefore such an amendment must be introduced by the consent of the Crown. However, I asked the Hon. Member at that time to produce evidence to the contrary or an authority to the contrary. This was not done. Therefore I sustained my own ruling; I've held up my own ruling. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, then, Mr. Chairman, you're saying that if you say it is right everybody has to prove you're wrong. You don't listen to any arguments on either side to either sustain you or reverse you except the ruling of the majority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm very satisfied with my own judgment in this case. Would the Hon. Members continue with the debate on section 6?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, what you're saying, I gather, is: "Don't confuse me with the facts — my mind's made up."

MR. WALLACE: On section 6, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to try again. Perhaps I can't achieve what we attempted initially, but the issue that is involved in section 6 is the double standard I mentioned of individuals living on the islands, paying taxes on the islands, being subject to a level of jurisdiction which no other part of this province is subject to.

It should be made very, very clear, that this is a level of authority under provincial government direction which is being applied to the citizens of the islands in a way which does not apply anywhere else in British Columbia. We've got local government, we've regional government, provincial government, federal government. But as far as the Gulf Islands are concerned, this legislation inserts another level of government authority. I don't know if we're getting that point across or not.

As such, the islanders are being controlled and restricted, albeit with good motives, by government. But in section 4(4) a different set of ground rules are being applied to any kind of government or Crown agency or Crown corporation or what-have-you.

I've tried to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that many, many developments in other parts of this province show that Crown agencies are not to be trusted as far as environmental concerns, consultation with the public and so on. There are endless examples to show that when you're dealing with the Ferry Authority or B.C. Hydro or such agencies of government, in fact, despite all the promises that one can receive verbally, when the chips are down these agencies tend to go the way they want to.

I think of some of the instances I've quoted in this House in previous debates where bulldozers turn up on somebody's land and start tearing apart the countryside. We've talked in various ways about expropriation and other similar actions of government in the name of the Crown or on behalf of a Crown corporation.

All we're trying to say in trying to amend this section, Mr. Chairman, is to say that what is good for the citizens, the individual in the name of the good future of the islands should be good for the government and good for the Crown and any arm or agency of the Crown.

[ Page 3464 ]

It's obvious that we can't amend this the way we would like to, but I would like to at least introduce an amendment which I'm sure is in order, Mr. Chairman, which limits the thrust of our original amendment but at least goes part way. I would like to suggest the following amendment to subsection (4) to add after the last word, "trustees": "and secondly takes part in at least one meeting with the trustees to discuss the proposed development or disposition of land."

I await your ruling regarding the amendment being in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, could I have your assurance that the amendment is in order? We debated it for 10 minutes last time and then were told it wasn't in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay as to whether his amendment is in order, I must regretfully rule that it is not in order because it does in fact again bind the Crown to a course of action. Such an amendment must be either introduced by the consent of the Crown or by a Minister of the Crown.

MR. CURTIS: Are you continuing to accept debate on section 6?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, on section 6.

MR. CURTIS: I think it's significant, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that the people of the Gulf Islands and the people of British Columbia will see and recognize very clearly the government's and the Minister's inflexibility on this bad bill. There are 21 individual recommendations put together by a consensus, a meeting of electoral area-regional district directors who studied the bill very closely, 21 individual recommendations as to how to improve the bill, and they have been ignored. One happened to coincide with an amendment standing in the name of the Minister to delete a section which will come a little further along.

That is some concession to the people of the Gulf Islands and some indications of this government's inflexibility and arrogance in power after just 20 months!

I fear very much one of the dangers of this trust, a year from now, five years from now — whenever it may occur — is that….

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are having a debate in principle all over again. I thought we were on section 6(4), as I understand it, not debate in principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the Hon. Member is, I believe, confining his remarks to this section. Therefore, I would rule his remarks in order to this point, providing they are relevant to section 6.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about section 6 and pointing out that this is the heart of the bill. This is land use. This is what will be permitted and what will not be permitted. That is why the government's refusal to accept the earlier amendments is so regrettable.

A few years from now, after the trust has been established and operating for quite some time, there is a very grave danger that it will become a little empire unto itself in matters affecting land use. No question about it. And it may cease to communicate with Crown agencies, regional districts and municipalities if they are established; and in this context I mean a village or town which may be established in one of the Gulf Islands. That would be extremely regrettable.

This trust will have to maintain open and easy contact with all levels of government, with Crown agencies, with citizen groups on the islands and with ratepayers' organizations in order to function effectively and in the best interests not only of the Gulf Islands, but of British Columbia as a whole. Well-handled, this could be very well done; it could be most effective. But badly handled, in isolation, with its gears closed after a number of years have passed, I'm afraid it will be something of a law unto itself.

For that reason I propose an amendment to this section which would add a new subsection (7), Mr. Chairman. It takes nothing away from the section as presently drawn, but a new subsection (7) would say — and I trust this does not interfere with the Crown: "Not later than January 15, 1975, and at six-month intervals thereafter, the chairman of the general trustees shall convene a meeting of all general trustees, local trustees and regional district electoral area directors who represent all islands within the trust area as may from time to time be established, for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the trust and making recommendations to the general trustees with regard to future activities." I so move, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule the amendment in order.

MR. WALLACE: It's obvious we are making some progress around here. In speaking to the amendment. I think its phraseology speaks for itself. We are concerned that even with the best motives a general trusteeship of three members, appointed by government, despite the promises and good intentions of the Minister to consult and discuss with all parties

[ Page 3465 ]

concerned, could in fact, within the outlines of section 6, fail indeed to maintain the kind of close cooperation and contact not only with the citizens on the island but, more importantly, their elected representatives and the people chosen as the local trustees in this case.

The Minister's inflexibility already this afternoon and his unwillingness to acknowledge that the Crown wants some privileged position in the way it dictates what might or might not be done with land under control of the Crown gives us very little confidence that the kind of consultations and cooperation which is so essential to the success of the work of this trust will take place.

We've already referred in this House to this particular Minister's attitude in certain other meetings and transit discussions where, in fact, he took a very authoritarian approach. We are very uneasy in this party that if that same kind of attitude is allowed to prevail through the vehicle of this trust without the kind of safeguards that we are trying to build into this bill by the amendments, there will indeed be far too much power and responsibility in the hands of the trustees, which may well act to the detriment not only of the development of the islands but to some of the rights and privileges of the individuals citizens when they want to have a real voice in discussing and expressing their own opinions about future development.

I see no reason why a meeting involving the people mentioned in the amendment every six months isn't just an eminently fair and reasonable safeguard that an adequate flow of information will occur in three directions involving the Minister's department, the trustees and the citizens who live on the island.

I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is in the House now, Mr. Chairman, because he is the expert on letting sunshine in. We are only suggesting that the kind of open government which this party in power espoused on the hustings they now have an excellent opportunity to show and practise in legislation and in a spirit of cooperation by accepting an opposition amendment. It has been done — not very often? but it gets done occasionally.

Here we have an opportunity for the Minister to show that he not only promises verbally that appropriate discussions will take place. We've simply written in a little subsection here which guarantees the citizens and the elected officials on the island access to the general trustees and through them to the Minister. I hope that the Minister can accept this amendment.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, in rising to support this amendment, I think it has been well covered for those islands which will have elected representatives on the board. But I would like to speak also for those islands which will not have any elected representatives on the board. I would like to specifically speak about Mudge Island, which I don't believe will have enough members to have elected representatives on the board. One of the items that we have been mentioning here regularly is the fact that Mudge Island will become a freeway with two bridges for that ultimate ferry. Those people will not have any access to anyone to complain.

This amendment at least gives them the privilege of hearing at least once every six months what the proposals are and having a right of input. It is obvious to me from the debate that has gone on this afternoon that this government has no intention of giving those people on the islands the right to say where the future of their islands will go.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm quite surprised at this debate going on the way it is. At the present time to say that the islanders don't have a say in their future, as the Hon. Member for Victoria just said, is absolute nonsense. At the present time they have no say in anything on these particular islands. In the Capital Regional District here they have two votes out of 47….

MR. MORRISON: They still have the right to go to court.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as the islands that are not designated as populated islands are concerned, they still have the three appointed trustees who will discuss the questions with them and take their views to whatever area they have to go.

I'm suggesting that the Tory group are certainly doing all they can to defeat the intent of this bill, not only in the frivolous amendment they are bringing out here but by visiting the islands and — from my information from having followed in his footsteps — giving certain interpretations to this bill which I feel are not quite accurate, according to the stories I received when I was on Saltspring Island.

MR. CURTIS: Point of order. I would like the Minister to be more specific and substantiate the inference that I was giving reports that were less than accurate with respect to this bill. The Minister knows full well that I opened the meetings to which he has referred by reading the bill and then, as I indicated the other day, by reading the NDP caucus newsletter.

I was complimented on a number of occasions by individuals who felt that it was an extremely fair meeting in each case. I think the Minister should either put up or shut up in something such as this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What has happened in the past has been that departments and Crown agencies

[ Page 3466 ]

have gone into the islands on their own and done whatever particular job they had been intending to do. section 6(4) gives the power to the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Minister, with respect, to retract or substantiate, if he can, the inference that I was misleading or giving wrong information in the meetings which I attended over the past few weeks. One way or the other; put up or shut up is perhaps a crude way of expressing it, but a substantiation or a retraction, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the Hon. Member may request that the Minister clarify his remarks, and I would ask the Hon. Minister to continue.

HON. MR. LORIMER: If the Member had requested me to withdraw the first time he had spoken, I would have withdrawn the statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know you're wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, that is not correct. But I'm withdrawing the statement that I said that I didn't agree with his interpretations of the Act.

Now, the other point I was going to raise was the question of the necessity under this section for the Crown agencies and the different departments of government to notify the trust before any action is taken, in order that the trust will now be able to be familiar with what are the intentions and can correlate the activities or have them reviewed, or whatever the trust may decide should be done.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'd just like to make an observation, Mr. Chairman, that this section we're dealing with says that Crown corporations such as B.C. Hydro must notify the trust, but you know, I can imagine that's all that will happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're dealing with the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Very, very briefly, Mr. Chairman — certainly we will support it. The whole legislation is predicated upon the overriding power of the general trustees, and all that this amendment does is make it obligatory that general trustees at least every six months meet with local trustees and the regional district representatives to review the work they have done and to consider the future course.

The people of the islands should well recognize t hat the general trustees appointed by this government are not in any way responsible to do anything that will be satisfactory to people on the islands, yet the-local trustees who are elected by the residents, the regional district representatives from the electoral areas who are elected by the residents, must have a right to meet with those general trustees and make sure that the course of the trust is being properly carried out.

This is all that this amendment does — ensure that the general trustees, appointees of the government, will in fact in carrying out their responsibilities meet with and be responsible to those people who are elected by the island residents.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 29

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, when you report to Mr. Speaker, would you inform him that a division took place on section 6?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed.

MR. CURTIS: I ask that it be recorded in the Journals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I just wish to speak once more about section 6 and the double standard that it implies. If the Members of the committee will look very carefully at the first subsection of section 6, you will notice that if a municipality, a duly elected local government in this province takes any action which may affect any of the areas within the island trust, that those actions can only be taken if they first of all get the approval of the cabinet and the trustees. The municipality must get approval from both bodies. In effect, subsection (1) provides that, so far as action

[ Page 3467 ]

by municipalities is concerned, the trustees are indeed able to overrule the cabinet, because if the cabinet approves what the municipality wishes to do, but the trustees do not, then the municipality cannot proceed under the first subsection of section 6.

Therefore, it clearly indicates the great concern which the government has with regard to activities which may affect the unique amenities and the environment of the lands within the island trust. That's what makes this double standard so difficult for me to accept — the double standard which is made clear by subsection (4) — because when it comes to an agency of the Crown, the agency of the Crown need seek approval from no one, neither from the cabinet, nor from the island trust. All they do is given notice.

When the people on the other Gulf Islands within the trust area, concerned as they are about their unique islands and the environment in which they live, also consider the classic cases of bad corporate citizenship which we have seen from our Crown corporations, they will have good reason to question the sincerity of the government in bringing forth this legislation in this particular form.

In other areas of the province affected by Crown corporations — I speak specifically of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, I speak of those unique areas in my constituency to which the rights-of-way of those two Crown corporations pass — when I consider what they have done in taking land, in indiscriminate spraying of rights-of-way which has resulted in the killing of foliage, wildlife and fish, I seriously question how the government could allow Crown corporations to deal with these islands without having the approval of the trust itself.

It means that those Crown corporations and the other emanations of the Crown for which this government is now so famous can deal with the designated islands merely by giving notice. There is no obligation to discuss. There is no obligation to disclose their plans. There is no obligation to seek approval, even from the three trustees which the government itself may appoint.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister could have cured this. He could have cured it by accepting any of the amendments to subsection (4) which have already been discussed. His refusal to do so obliged me to oppose the section.

Section 6 approved.

Section 7 approved.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Bill 112, Islands Trust Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill 8 1.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 129.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 129; Mr. Liden in

[ Page 3468 ]

the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, in the debate on second reading of this bill, containing only one section, I raised with the Minister the question dealing with the conditions under which he anticipates that principal and interest might be rebated, or indeed that there be grants in retrospect because it includes the right to rebate principal and interest which has in fact already been paid. I mentioned this in second reading and I would be pleased if the Minister could indicate, the experience that the department has had which would encourage this significant amendment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we made it clear, I think, in announcements to this date and in the amendment before us that we intend to go the guarantee route rather than the direct lending, although not necessarily totally. Certainly there will be more emphasis on the guarantee route. Going the guarantee route means that borrowers, of course, will have to pay the going rate of interest or whatever rate of interest we are able to negotiate on behalf of a borrower, by talking to the lending institutions as we have been doing. I hope this week to be able to announce that this programme will be in place by the end of the week.

Having decided that, then the question of discounts of interest or principal becomes available to us. One of the reasons for this is that we want to be able to encourage agricultural development in some areas of the province where there may be some element of risk that operators would not be prepared to undertake the sort of agricultural programmes that we would like to see encouraged in those areas, or perhaps where they feel that it's worth gambling, for example, on grain production in the Peace River where it might be to the community's advantage to persuade them to grow other crops, perhaps crops that they haven't heretofore grown, or to encourage forest production in areas where it is not currently going on. But because of the high price of grain, the producers are more inclined to take a chance on the weather and try for grain crops. But more, it is to encourage producers to produce products in certain areas of the province where they haven't done it previously than for the other purposes, I would think.

Beyond that, as the Member said in raising the question, it would also allow us to actually affect the net interest that a borrower is paying. I can't say yet because the programme isn't definitely in place, but when it is in place it is possible that it could even be used to control the net interest that a borrower is paying for this particular programme.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 129, Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 77.

DEBTOR ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to introduce this bill for second reading because it will assist, we believe, the total community.

It assists the debtor; it will assist the creditors; it will assist society inasmuch as it may prevent debtors ending up requiring the assistance of the total community; and it will assist the courts that have long been overburdened by having to adjudicate the problems between debtors and creditors.

This bill is the result of a study done on behalf of the Judges' Small Claims Committee, headed by Chief Justice Brahan of the provincial court. I'd like to quote from that report:

"The role of the Judges' Small Claims Committee has been to meet periodically to discuss general issues affecting the operations of the courts, and the small claims court in particular. One issue raised was the general problem of the workload of the entire court system. In particular, the problems centred on the small debts claims coming before the court which were not in dispute but rather which presented difficulty for the defendant to pay or arrange settlement upon.

"A proposed solution to this unnecessary back logging was the initiation of a referee system of arbitrating terms of repayment to the satisfaction of both debtor and creditor. This system would not supplant the court process, but would provide a less formal setting in which the situation of the debtor and creditor could be examined in detail and a resolution brought forward to be recommended to the courts."

Essentially, that is what this bill proposes to do — assist the courts. An outside party would bring the debtor and the creditor together, would be able to make arrangements for a satisfactory debt resolution,

[ Page 3469 ]

and would then offer the recommendations to the court. The court then could base its decision on the recommendations of the referee or not, as the court saw fit. But it would relieve the court of having to do this basic bookkeeping type of work itself.

The Act goes further in that we feel that there is a further need for counselling, for debt advisement. It is one thing to settle a problem, a debtor's problem; it is one thing to be able to satisfy the creditors and assist the creditors to get the full amount of their money rather than have the debtor go into personal bankruptcy with perhaps his creditor getting only half of his money; but it is another to make sure that the debtor does not get into debt again.

In studies in Alberta it's been shown that 88 per cent of the people coming before the debtors' assistance board there had no idea of how to keep a budget. Our legislation would assist debtors to set up a budget system. It would assist a debtor in counselling him so that he would not get into these situations again.

Ours is a society that pushes credit as a way of life, as the way to the good life. We are constantly being bombarded by advertisements telling us: "Fly now — pay later….No money down, easy credit terms." And right around Christmas time you get the one that says: "Purchase now — no payment for 90 days." They neglect to tell you that you must pay interest charges for those 90 days that you are not making payments.

Our Act has been based on the experience of the Province of Alberta where they have had similar legislation for over 50 years — and, in its present form, for about 31 years. They have been very, very successful in Alberta with their debtors' assistance board.

In 1958, the City of Toronto instituted a similar referee system. The courts requested it there, and Mr. Scott is the referee there. He has been operating the service since 1958. He handles for metro Toronto approximately 7,000 cases a year, and very successfully.

Alberta's experience has been that their caseload for their population size is around 7,000 cases a year.

In Vancouver alone 12,000 cases came before the small debts court. It appears, based on statistics provided by Alberta and Toronto, that about one-third of all cases coming before small claims court are debtor-creditor cases dealing with these very deep problems of debt involvement. So we can safely assume that in Vancouver, in that population size, at least 4,000 cases alone dealt with these problems.

This is why we feel that this is a necessary Act. It is designed to assist the community because of the fact that a debtor who is able to receive an extension of time and receive some debt counselling on how not to get into debt will be an asset to society. He will not, perhaps, lose his job because of his wages being garnisheed, nor will he end up on social assistance rolls.

I think the statistics that have been shown by Statistics Canada will bring home to us the amount of mortgaging of the future that Canadians do. As of January 1, 1974, over $17 billion was outstanding in consumer credit in Canada. This did not include mortgages owing. That was about $850 for each man, woman and child in Canada or, roughly, about $1,300 per adult Canadian. Now that's quite a debt load to be carrying.

We don't know how many families are broken apart through severe financial problems. We don't know how many jobs, homes, cars, furniture, appliances have been lost, nor the money that could have been saved by our communities because of bankruptcy, garnishments or collection of delinquent accounts. We don't know about the absenteeism from work due to money worries, and even crime arising from it.

There are no statistics for these things. But they do represent a cost to the taxpayers and to the consumer in having credit losses passed on to them in their purchases from retail outlets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Just a few brief comments in passing. I appreciated the words from the Minister about what she plans to do and hopes this bill will do.

I would suggest that she has in her department the power to go into the educational system. We've discussed this before. I think that a little course somewhere at the high school level on business management and what rights a person has who incurred a debt — teaching them about small debts court, teaching them about interest, teaching them about contracts and their obligations — would be a very good course to have at the high school level.

I think that if we had some education along these lines before people get out into the world themselves and get taken by a lot of these gimmicky salesmen and so forth, why, we wouldn't have this problem.

I've found in business myself that where a person who gets in debt is willing to pay, we have never, never…. Our policy is that we would never push them. But I find that 90 per cent of the time people who don't pay their debts are people who really don't intend to pay their debts. Either they're that type of person who are trying to go around creating debts with the intention of never paying them, or they get in so far that they can't pay them.

But where the problem is, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, is that a tremendous number of very small businesses — I'm talking about corner grocery stores, service stations, local body shops, people who employ, oh, say, five or six people….

[ Page 3470 ]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous number of these small businesses go broke each year. The main reason they go broke is because they have allowed people to get into debt. Perhaps they are not that experienced in business; maybe they don't bother checking out credit ratings because they know the person but don't know his full financial background. So that person gets into debt to them.

As a small business they then in turn have financial difficulties because they can't collect their debts from the individual people.

I really feel that you may want to consider this, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the Minister would comment on this in closing the debate.

Maybe she would consider extending this bill to include small businesses employing up to,, say, 10 people. The majority of them are just starting out on their own; they haven't had that much business experience. They are maybe not as tough on credit as they should be, so they allow themselves to get into debt. Then it becomes a court case between their major supplier and them as a small businessman.

But I'll admit that it all goes back to the individual. This is the biggest reason why small businesses go broke: it's because of extended credit and lack of operating capital. The extended credit is mostly to individuals who have gotten in too far and they have been too lenient.

These are two suggestions that I wish you would maybe consider and comment on: first, that an educational course, even if it was short, in the schools be made available — it wouldn't have to be mandatory — for people to take advantage of knowing what their rights and what their obligations are in our "debt society," as you call it; secondly, having available to small businesses of up to 10 employees through your commission the ability to go and get some education themselves on maybe how to run their business and what their rights and obligations are under our debt system.

If it works, as the Minister says, it will certainly be of assistance to both the debtor and the creditor.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) brought up some very worthwhile points. We have a community programme director who will be preparing kits for the schools on debt and credit. Our counsellors will also be available to speak to schools on this subject.

It is generally conceded by educators that when people are motivated they learn. Speaking to some educators on this subject, they found that as soon as somebody had a credit card or was purchasing a car on time payments, they became very, very interested in interest rates and how much they were really paying and so on. It began to mean something to them.

When you are in secondary school, interest rates and all that are pretty dull. But once you get involved in the real world, even at the high school level, then all these things begin to mean something to you. But we are definitely planning educational programmes for the schools.

With regard to the small businessman who extends credit, I appreciate the Member's concern. This is precisely what we are trying to do: by providing a counselling service to these people we can avoid bankruptcy — personal bankruptcy — of that individual — in other words, that individual person who may not be paying his bills. Because very often they will take the bankruptcy route to get out of their troubles. This way, by providing the counselling and assistance, we can get 100 cents on the dollar for the creditor rather than 10 cents, 20 cents or 50 cents, which is normal in bankruptcy procedures.

It is interesting to note the reaction of the credit-granting community to our legislation. We have not received one adverse comment from anyone in the industry. Quite the contrary, they all seem to be pleased with it. As a matter of fact, we have had over 50 people employed in the credit-granting industry apply for positions in this particular department when and if, at the pleasure of the Legislature, it is established.

I now move second reading of Bill 77, Debtor Assistance Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 77, Debtor Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Second reading of Bill 126, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Before speaking to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be helpful for the Hon. Members if I gave them a history of its evolution.

In June of last year a two-day conference on consumer affairs was called by the Hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald). As the recently appointed Minister Without Portfolio responsible for consumer affairs, I was asked to act as co-host.

Among the participants were representatives from the Vancouver Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Association of Canada, the Consumer Action League, the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, the Legal Aid Society, the Vancouver Province's "Action Line," CBC's consumer specialist, the B.C. Central Credit Union and others — in all, about 22 people.

Mr. William Neilson was the keynote speaker and

[ Page 3471 ]

catalyst. At the end of the second day it was agreed by all that the conference had been a thundering success. A consensus was reached on what form the proposed Department of Consumer Services should take and the kind of legislation necessary to help consumers in the new marketplace of the 1970s.

Heretofore it had been customary to enact legislation to prohibit one or two deceptive practices — usually long after the fact. As a result we have on the books a long list of Acts, each dealing with one specific practice. These have traditionally been written and enacted after many people have lost a great deal of money and suffered personal hardship, from which many may never recover.

All of the conferees felt that it was necessary to design legislation to stop a deceptive practice before it started rather than wait for the practice to happen and then move to outlaw it.

The bill we have before us is a direct result of that consensus. Many of the deceptive practices listed were specifically requested by the participants of that conference and unanimously agreed to. The means to deal with violations were thoroughly thrashed out so that both consumers and business people would have their rights fully protected.

Additional input to the bill came from various trade and industry associations. In all cases the reputable business firms recognized that they were at a distinct disadvantage in competition when the disreputable members of their respective industries used underhanded and devious methods to sell their goods and services.

An excellent example of this was the $9 TV rental scheme that Mr. Vince Forbes of the Vancouver Better Business Bureau exposed so well. One of the oldest and most reputable TV and radio retailers in Vancouver asked us what we could do to stop this scheme. We were forced to reply that although we recognized that the practice was deceitful, unethical, and immoral, under existing law it was not illegal.

Indeed, it is a sad commentary on the existing state of the consumer protection legislation which we inherited from the previous administration that the bait-and-switch operation is not illegal in this province. Perhaps this is one of the few remaining jurisdictions in the western world where it is not. All of this is in spite of the notorious $10.95 reconditioned vacuum cleaner gimmick of 20 years ago that fleeced thousand of British Columbians. Variations on this theme have flourished with equanimity ever since and are flourishing to this day.

In drafting this bill we examined consumer legislation in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, taking from each those features that best suited the problems confronting us in British Columbia. To these we added the recommendations of the conference held in June and the suggestions of the various trade associations.

Over the months, I and spokesman from my department have indicated in rather specific detail the direction we were going in and received support for our proposals from all segments of society.

Our Act was the first of its kind in Canada for one day. The day after it was introduced in our Legislature, the Government of Ontario introduced a similar Act in their Legislature.

At the recent inter-provincial conference of Consumer Affairs Ministers held in Jasper, Alberta, the pivotal point of interest was the two respective Acts. It was generally conceded that B.C. had presented the best and most balanced Act of all. And several provinces have indicated that they will be introducing similar legislation in the near future.

They particularly liked the shopping list of deceptive practices, the guidance to the courts as to what constitutes an unconscionable act — a decision that courts have heretofore been reluctant to adjudicate, and rightfully so. Previous consumer and contract law gave power to the courts to avoid harsh and unconscionable agreements. The courts felt that they were being asked to do the work of the legislature by determining what was harsh and unconscionable. That work, and that definition properly belonged to the law makers, not the law interpreters.

The bill outlines in extensive detail what constitutes a deceptive and unconscionable practice. It provides immediate remedy by giving the director of trade practices the right, upon reasonable grounds, to investigate the situation and to take one of several actions.

First of all, he can attempt a mediation between the two par-ties. Frequently disputes arise from a lack of communications between consumer and supplier, and a neutral ground upon which they can communicate. We estimate that 95 per cent of our cases will be solved through these means, through simple mediation.

Secondly, he can, if it appears that the supplier is in clear violation of the Act, ask the supplier to make full restitution of lost moneys, and sign an agreement of voluntary compliance to abide by the Act. The matter ends there if all parties are satisfied.

If, however, the supplier refuses to conform to the provisions of the Act, the director can then ask the courts to adjudicate the matter. The Act gives the right to consumers to pursue a complaint on their own. It also permits them to do so on behalf of other consumers similarly affected.

It even allows for a third party to take an action on behalf of a consumer or a class of consumers. However, the recovery from any such action is limited to the recovery of moneys lost, and not damages. The director has the same right to take action on behalf of a consumer or class of consumers.

We are saying that we will, for a change, help the

[ Page 3472 ]

consumer; we will go to court for him; we will go to bat for him on his behalf. We feel that this legislation will right the balance in the marketplace of today.

It is an interesting sociological note that at the recent Consumer Ministers Conference the province that was the farthest behind in consumer protection legislation in all of Canada should bring forward the most advanced and progressive remedies.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, better late than never. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a few comments. I don't think anyone who is a reputable businessman would ever speak against this bill, certainly not. Anything that's brought in that protects the reputable businessman, which this Act will do, should be welcome.

However, I think we should have a companion Act, and it should be known as the government practices Act — to protect the people against the government doing things that they don't want them to do.

In the last 18 months, Mr. Speaker, this government has done things that nobody wants done, so we should have a bill which would protect the people of this province against this government.

This government, for instance, has taken away the right of a person to buy his automobile insurance where he wants. The government has demanded that he buy, for instance, collision insurance on a certain year automobile.

Now, if we had a bill which is known as the government practices Act, we could have written into that bill clauses which would prevent and make it against the law for that government to do some of the things they have done.

For instance, we could have a tenet in there — in this new government bill I'm talking about, this new government practices Act — which would prevent the government from killing the mining industry. We could also have certain tenets written into the Act which would protect the forestry against government takeover.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Hon. Member, I'm sure there are many things that could be put in any bill before the House. What we are concerned with is the principle of the bill that is before us, and not what you want to introduce into it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just drawing a parallel line, Mr. Speaker, that if we're going to protect the individual against the businessman then we should also protect the individual against the government.

There are certain civic governments which are having their rights taken away from them. We just passed a bill here this afternoon that completely takes away the rights of a certain civic government here on the lower mainland. So, if the government is going to be so conscionable about protecting the individual, well, they should also be conscionable about protecting the individual against practices by the government which harm that individual. That's what I'm trying to point out, Mr. Speaker. And I know you think it would be an excellent idea also. I can see by the way you're nodding your head that you think it would be a good idea.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just sleepy.

MR. PHILLIPS: In today's world, Mr. Speaker, we need to protect the individual from certain trade practices, and we need to protect the individual from certain government practices, and that is going to be a greater cry. Maybe next year we'll have to bring in a new Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is very fundamental legislation for the Minister's department, and I think that fair merchants and fair consumers will, by and large, welcome the legislation.

No doubt over the coming year or so, defects and problems will turn up here and there in the drafting and amendments of this kind may be required. Hopefully the Minister will keep an open mind on this over the forthcoming year.

I would suggest, as well, to her that the manner of enforcement and the personality of the person appointed as director will be very important to the introduction and success of this Act.

I congratulate her on the investigating ability of the director and his ability to go through the process of mediation, and share her hope that indeed 95 per cent of the complaints will be solved at that level.

The ability of the consumer to have recourse to the small claim court, I think, is a good provision of the bill. And the general recourse to the courts is a good provision of the bill The government is not always a favourite of the Financial Post, but in the Financial Post of May 18 in their lead editorial they had to say the following:

"The legislative rush to invest boards, commissions, and Ministers with broad authority, over whose decision there is no appeal, has been a feature of government in Canada in recent years. But in the midst of this bleak progress towards the no man's land of arbitrary decision, a faint ray of light has poked through.

"Last week the B.C. government introduced a Trade Practices Act designed to halt what is termed 'sharp practices' and gives consumers a chance to recover losses when they are victimized by unfair business tactics.

"While the bill does provide for a director of

[ Page 3473 ]

trade practices to handle consumer complaints and investigate possible contraventions, it assigns to the courts the role of ordering practices to be stopped in ruling upon questions of redress."

I just wanted to cite that favourable editorial from the Financial Post because later on today if another bill comes up I will be citing unfavourable ones, and wanted to establish the fact that it's an impartial jury.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister well with this bill over the next year. I ask her to keep in mind the possibility of amendment on the fine details as it is worked out, and on the particular importance in the way in which the director approaches his new duties.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano for reading that editorial, I had it handy, and if you hadn't, I would have.

It has been very, very well received by, as I say, all segments of the community. We have received some very good correspondence from some solicitors who do not share our party's philosophy, but they went out of their way to say that they thought this was a fine piece of legislation, and congratulated us rather extensively on it.

I might add that the bill merely being introduced into the House for the first time has appeared to be having an effect already. I think we have seen that effect in the case of the Budget Mobile Home situation. It's quite clear it would appear, in my mind at least, that the gentleman involved, who absconded with $180,000, stole from his partner, he stole from his creditors and he stole from his customers. He happened to do it after this Act was introduced.

Also it has come to our attention that several other sharp operators in other fields have also taken to the hills outside of British Columbia. So just merely the fact that the bill was introduced into the Legislature has already had a very progressive effect for all concerned, for all citizens. I'm sure that I appreciate the support from all Members of the House on this matter.

I now move second reading of Bill 126.

Motion approved.

Bill 126, Trade Practices 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 139.

AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND
DEVELOPMENT (BRITISH COLUMBIA)

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the government has previously made it quite obvious that it wants to pursue a programme to save agricultural land, and furthermore wants to develop land that is fit for agriculture but has not previously been developed.

Under the ALDA programme that was expanded upon so much in the spring of 1973, we have enabled farmers to clear a great deal more land than was ever possible before under the older legislation.

In the 1973 fiscal period when $900,000 was provided under the ALDA vote, something just over half of that was actually spent — $491,000. In 1974 under the changed legislation, when $1.5 million was provided for, knowing that the legislation was being changed, we had to go back to Treasury during the year and ask for additional funds, so approximately $2.4 million was spent in total — a substantial increase over the previous year.

In the period we're now in, when we actually provided $2.5 million, at the rate that applications are coming in and being processed it would look as though, if we're going to keep accepting them, we will again have to go back to Treasury as the rate at which it's going now would indicate an expenditure during the year of some $4 million.

With respect to ARDA, a programme that has provided for perhaps more large-scale work in the way of making land available for agriculture, again the history in the past was that substantial funds would be provided in estimates but then not spent because the legislation was too restrictive.

In the fiscal period ending March 31, 1973, when $5.5 million was voted for ARDA, less than half of that was spent — a total of about $2.4 million. In 1974 the same amount was provided and, as has been indicated in question period, we don't have the figures yet, but likely it will be in the same neighbourhood, probably less than half.

In the current period the amount provided is the same, although estimates would actually show $4.5 million rather than $5.5 million — this is because $1 million is being transferred to the Secretariat for work that is being done under the Canada Land Inventory. So really we have the same amount of money to work with, but in my own department, under ARDA, $4.5 million.

Again, we will, if we are bound within the existing legislation, find that it just won't be possible to spend this amount of money clearing and increasing the amount of agricultural land actually in production in the province.

The legislation before us would enable the department to go ahead on projects without having to wait for Ottawa to approve them. In many cases we know from the nature of the project and from the experience we have had with the federal government that a project will be approved but it still takes a minimum of eight months, sometimes two years, to

[ Page 3474 ]

get final approval.

This legislation in one of the amendments would enable us to go ahead on that project in anticipation of federal government approval eventually and at that time the funds would be recovered, but would enable us to go ahead in anticipation. Of course if it happened that it wasn't approved, we would still have that much more land in production.

A second instance in which this bill would enable us to move would be particularly in the case of community-pasture development. When this was first provided for some 12 years ago, it was possible to bring land into production as a community pasture for an average rate of $50 an acre. But that's 12 years ago and costs have gone up tremendously in the interim period. Yet if it's going to cost more than that, we just can't enter into an agreement with Ottawa for development of that particular community pasture.

Again, knowing that the costs are going to exceed $50, this legislation would enable us to charge the excess amount against the ARDA vote and still enter into agreement with Ottawa on the $50 rate until we can get that negotiated upward.

One further case where we could use this vote, when this legislation is passed, is in the case of relatively smaller projects affecting a number of individuals. If it wasn't quite appropriate to the federal agreement…the federal agreement, for example, binds us to having at least seven farmers benefiting from it, sharing the costs. Sometimes it may be a bit too restrictive. It would, on examination, enable the department to go ahead with the project, a relatively small one, even knowing that it would not qualify for federal sharing, but still would qualify for agricultural rehabilitation and development.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we'll certainly support this legislation.

It's almost ironic to hear the Minister state that sometimes Ottawa doesn't move as fast as they do, I know the previous government was always being condemned for not getting as many dollars out of Ottawa as there were there. But now that the government who were in opposition are dealing with Ottawa, they're finding that it's not always possible to move that fast and there are certain restrictive clauses which….

Certainly this will be a great assistance to the Peace River area where there are many projects involving, as the Minister said, less than seven farmers. Certainly, even where certain community pastures have been established, there is a necessity to upgrade them, replant them and replough them because they're being taken over in some instances by the native aspen in the area and they should be upgraded. So this Act will certainly allow for that.

There are certainly other areas in the Peace River area, which are Crown land, which could be extended into community pastures, and this will certainly be of great assistance, therefore we will certainly support the legislation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too will support the legislation. The aspect of it which I find most gratifying is the repatriation, or I suppose it is the patriation of ARDA as far as British Columbia is concerned. I've long felt that the limitations under the existing ARDA programme which obliged that there be federal-provincial participation was indeed shutting off from rehabilitation many projects which the provincial department itself might feel worthwhile.

I would hope that what the Minister has indicated about the seven farmers and so on is not going to suggest that the areas in which the province may decide to go it alone will be necessarily of such small compass, and that the provincial government will in the future see fit to undertaking projects without requiring any cost participation at all by the people who in the first instance may appear to benefit from the programme.

The startling thing about agricultural rehabilitation is that those who need rehabilitation most are often those who can least afford to embark upon these programmes, yet by giving this kind of aid they may be put in the position where they can make a significant contribution to the development of agriculture in the province. If this is the direction we're going, then I think it bodes well for the agricultural segment.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps having spoken so optimistically about it and had the support of the parties opposite, I should draw attention to the fact that we still want to use this as a joint programme and there is the restriction in the Act that the "go it alone" funds are limited to 25 per cent of the vote. We may find, with experience, that that should be changed and may come back another year asking for a change.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 139, Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974, 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 106, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3475 ]

PHARMACY ACT

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 106 is a new Pharmacy Act totally endorsed by and, as a matter of fact, completely done in cooperation with the Pharmaceutical Association. The Act was first suggested to my department not long after we came into office and I think it was in the works prior to that. It's taken a great deal of discussion and a great deal of time. Generally speaking, the Act is an Act that…. Well, I shouldn't say generally speaking — it's an Act that we endorse completely, but it is an Act of the Pharmaceutical Association.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like just briefly to go over the main areas of change. First of all I'll just indicate that we left the pesticide Act attached to the Pharmacy Act temporarily. You recall that some time ago we appointed a royal commission to look into the whole question of pesticides in the Province of British Columbia. Now that royal commission has submitted an interim report, but that report is not by any stretch of the imagination final. The final report we expect sometime later on this year and at that time I would suggest that it's very likely, if not almost for sure, that the pesticide aspect will be taken out of the Pharmacy Act.

We thought of delaying the Pharmacy Act, waiting for the report and then, ultimately, I would hope, new pesticide legislation. That hasn't been possible, so we felt, and the Pharmaceutical Association felt as well, that it would be important for us to submit the Act to this parliament and deal with it now. Then when it's necessary we will amend the pesticide aspect out.

So the pesticide aspect of this bill is identically the same as the old pesticide Act, just so that we do have a pesticide Act. You see, if we brought in a Pharmacy Act which would eliminate the old Pharmacy Act, then we'd have no pesticide Act in the province. So therefore we had to bring this in just to cover us in the interim period.

Briefly, the main areas of change are as follows. The possible size of the council is increased. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoints one member and the dean of the faculty of pharmaceutical science is automatically a member. The president is automatically a member of the executive committee.

In discipline, there are sections that are new and they don't correspond to the existing discipline measures, but as I said this is the area that has been tightened up a little bit by the Pharmaceutical Association and certainly we go along with them.

The bylaws and rules are distinctly separated and authority is given in each area to make bylaws and rules, whereas in the present Act — that's the Act that we have in force now — the authority to make bylaws and regulations is all included in one section and there is no distinction.

Pharmacy ownership has been a problem in the past. The present Act requires that if a pharmacy is operated by a company incorporated subsequent to 1946, the majority of common stock must be held by pharmacists. This common stock provision was exempted for companies incorporated prior to that date. Remember the grandfather clause was not part of the Pharmacy Act — I should say the grandfather clause meant that any large chain that was incorporated prior to 1946 could continue on in its own way. You'll notice one of the major chains was transferred — from Cunningham's to Shoppers Drug Mart. They're still using that grandfather clause. This bill leaves out all references to ownership and in fact enlarges the terms of the present Act so that societies and cooperatives can own pharmacies. So that, I think, is a real improvement in the Act.

Because of the removal of the ownership requirement, more liability and responsibility has been placed not only on the pharmacists' directors, but on the lay directors and upon the manager as well.

This bill is a little distinctive from the old Act. The present Act has no details of appeal procedure, although it does allow for an appeal from a decision of the council. The bill contains a very clear-cut method of the procedure. In other words, the old bill wasn't clear, but the new bill has a very clear-cut method of appeal.

Also, under "limitation of action," action against a person registered as a pharmacist for negligence or malpractice is limited to six months in the present Act and has been raised to one year in this bill.

Also, under "wholesales," Mr. Speaker, authority is granted in this bill for the inspection of records of wholesales, which will assist in ensuring that drugs are only supplied to persons who are licensed to resell them.

Mr. Speaker, I think that basically those are the changes. Otherwise it very much reflects the old Pharmacy Act. It's a bit improved, and it's completely endorsed by the Department of Health and the Pharmaceutical Association. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of Bill 106.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to express support for the bill from the official opposition. We've talked to the pharmacy people and it's the result of a lot of work by them with the Health department and they're completely happy with it. We'll support the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say other than I'm very pleased that the opposition have checked it out, as they obviously have, and that they do support this bill. I think it is a progressive piece of legislation. I therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3476 ]

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 89.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

HON. MRS. DAILLY: This bill currently before the House is not a major revision of the Public Schools Act, but it does introduce a number of important changes, particularly in the whole area of the power of school boards in this province. The bill taken as a whole gives evidence of the government's desire to place as much autonomy as possible in the hands of the locally elected boards of school trustees in this province.

Also in these amendments we have removed a number of obsolete and redundant sections from the present school Act. In addition, we have made a number of minor revisions, primarily as a result of representations to the government from the boards of school trustees and the Teachers' Federation which we feel should improve a number of specific areas. Some of these areas, which I'd, just like to discuss generally and in principle in this reading, are in the area of giving local autonomy in the matter of the approval of courses and the use of textbooks.

The principle in this bill recommends that the boards will now have the authority to approve courses of study, textbooks, supplementary readers and other instructional materials for use in their districts. Prior to this Act being placed before you, any board which wished to have approval for a local course had to come before the Minister for approval. We are now saying that we think certainly that out there the school districts with their professional staff and with their teachers are able to develop, on their own, specific courses which will meet the needs of their own students without having to bring them before the Minister for approval. This, of course, will also mean that they will have an opportunity to involve themselves in selection eventually of their own textbooks.

I do want to make it clear that the government has no intention of abrogating its responsibility to ensure that every child in the public schools of this province receives the basic core curriculum for which he and she are entitled.

We feel that this must still be given the leadership of the department, and direction in this matter, particularly for curriculum. So it is mainly an enrichment area. However, there are some boards that might consider the course being put in for more than enrichment, but it should be part of the study of that programme. But it will all be done to complement the basic board curriculum.

We realize that this is going to require a considerable amount of work for the school boards in the province, and at the moment we are setting up committees to meet with the boards so that we can develop the necessary regulations to ensure that this transition toward locally approved courses is done smoothly.

Numerous people are concerned with the status of independent schools which up to now have been receiving their textbooks. I want to assure the House that the independent schools will still have access to any materials stocked by the Department of Education in the same manner in which it has been done heretofore and up to the present time. In other words, the textbooks will still be available.

Obviously, there are many current arrangements which will have to be worked out among the school boards to have this develop smoothly.

There are other minor sections of the Act which I think would be better discussed in the committee stage. There are amendments to indemnities which allow all boards, no matter what size, to pay a certain maximum, if they so wish. Before, the smaller boards had been discriminated against.

There is also a section of the Act which actually states that we do feel that the district superintendents must also consult with their professional staff, over which they have direction, before they make major professional decisions in their districts.

The government firmly believes in the consultation theory in the management of its affairs. Since the district superintendent of the district is specifically directed by the Public Schools Act, it is felt it's appropriate to spell out in the school Act to all concerned that we expect and want to see this consultation technique used.

You will also find in the Act that we have now removed the former restriction against persons who are registered under the Marriage Act not being eligible as teachers. Now any person registered under the Marriage Act is eligible to teach in the schools of British Columbia.

One of the major sections of our Act is the removal of the capital referendum., This is something which has, of course, been asked for by a number of school boards. It is something which our government, when in opposition, advocated. We do believe that the school boards are quite capable of making those referendum decisions on capital requirements. I do want to point out, however, that there certainly is a counter-check by government as we pay 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or 90 per cent of capital expenditures in some areas of the district. All approval for capital programmes has to come, of course, before the

[ Page 3477 ]

Department of Education, so there is certainly a counter-check on it. What we are basically saying, though, is that school boards are responsible enough to make those basic decisions without having to go to referendum.

It will give them a chance to plan, I think. In the long-range view they won't be in the situation they were in under the former government where the referendum was still insisted upon and where you had school districts having their referendums go down to defeat with the result that today, we, as the government, are having to pick up many of those areas which have been standing neglected in the past.

We feel that the taxpayers have their rights in this because certainly they elect the school board. That's where they can certainly let their school board know whether they are pleased with their planning or not.

I would also hope that any school board would use the mechanism of consultation with their taxpayers if they are planning a new type of expenditure in capital which they think the taxpayers might be concerned about. We would certainly expect them to have public meetings and discuss these new programmes with the taxpayers before they present their programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was most pleasing to hear the Hon. Minister give us two assurances today: first, there will not be any de-emphasis or curtailment of the basic curricula, and I'm very glad that she illustrated that point because I'm afraid that was one that was not very clear in the eyes of the general public before.

Secondly, I take it independent schools will not at all be affected adversely by this legislation, and you will continue to provide the textbooks as you have in the past. But in order that they will not be adversely affected by the legislation I would much appreciate, Madam Minister, if when you close you could indicate whether or not they themselves will be granted the same liberties and rights as the public school system in order to provide at least textbooks for any curricula that they decide to pose over the basic curricula. I think if you are going to extend the fairness test, you have certainly got to extend it in a fair manner all the way.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of the 2,600 ministers in this province who, according to the Marriage Act and its definition of an active clergyman, may now teach. We appreciate that many other people have been able to teach, but I'll assure you that I've had about a dozen letters in my brief time as an MLA from a lot of clergy who want to remain as priests and who would like to remain active in both professions. Thanks to you, they now can.

I don't know, incidentally, how that regressive, restrictive legislation ever stayed in the statutes of this province. I find that somewhat incredible and I've always had difficulty reconciling the Social Credit government's so-called liberal Christianity when that kind of discrimination stayed on the statute books. I thank you for that.

I have said in several speeches that we must proclaim and really promote basic-core educational skills of computing, of reading well and quickly, and of writing and composing. We certainly proclaim that. We expect, as a department, that school boards will be carrying that out. At the same time we are trying to meet the tremendous educational changes.

We just had committee hearings this morning for three and a half hours; we heard school districts and teachers from the south part of Vancouver Island. It is very obvious that this legislation is long overdue in really trying to provide for innovative changes that school boards and teachers, I hope, can come up with.

Incidentally, this brings up the whole question of the importance of the teachers to really have a relationship with those boards. I want to be positive here; you do hear negative things at times. There must be consultation when there are curricula changes. It's not just the professional teacher who as a superintendent is representing the board. There must be, I hope, as these decisions are made, a learning conditions curricula committee of school boards so that the most appropriate curricula for that particular area is promoted.

I certainly concur with the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on section 14 — we might discuss that in greater detail. I think there must be a two-way thing with the independent people. If we can innovate — which requires new curricula and new textbooks which aren't, to quote the Minister, already available in warehouses — they should be able to have that same freedom to bring in textbooks that they want. I just assume that they have that same freedom. Of course, they are very eager to be supervised by our superintendent of schools. They are very eager to have at least as good an excellence standard educationally.

I would also like to compliment the Minister that there is no more need for capital referenda. I think this will really free up the planning process. It is so crucial.

Just close to this Legislature you and I have talked about some very unfortunate cases where we now pay very exorbitant prices for real estate, where there should have been much better planning much earlier. But this legislation is long overdue; it's just a beginning. I think we are being careful here as we amend the Public Schools Act, but it is long overdue and I commend it.

[ Page 3478 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker, to set the Premier's mind at ease because most of the things we wish to discuss, we can do in committee.

I'm a little concerned, however, with the section of the new Act that allows the district superintendent to supervise organization, instruction, counselling and discipline only in consultation with the professional staff of the school district. I just wonder, if the district superintendent happens to be the chief executive officer of the school board, if his duties are being watered down. It would appear to be that way — that he won't be able to make any moves in these important areas, nor will the school board unless they first of all get the permission of the teachers in the school district. It seems to me that that is going just a little bit too far if, in fact, that is what that section of the bill means.

Other than that we generally support the bill but there are some things we would like to speak about later in committee stage.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We won't oppose the matter in principle; we'll deal with it in committee. But I wish to sound a note of alarm and warning concerning this matter of capital expense projects.

We have this bill which is making it possible for any person on any voters list to be a school trustee in any school district, This may lead to a situation where the members of a school board may not have the relationship with a school district which presently is the case. I just believe the voters in a school district who are going to foot the bill should continue to have the right to express their views when it comes to the matter of capital expense borrowing.

I appreciate that the Minister must give her approval; I appreciate that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must also take this matter into account before borrowing can be allowed to proceed. But it is a further diminution of the rights of the citizens at the local level and the further centralization of authority here in Victoria. I happen to be against that.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I made note of the comments made in this second reading. I will be ready to discuss them in committee stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 89, Public Schools 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: Just a minor housekeeping bill: second reading of Bill 31.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I thought you would never call the bill. It seems to me I've waited 31 times to get to my feet to speak on this bill. I've finally got around to it.

I would like to say that it is a great privilege to move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker. When I look back over the years that I've sat in this House, I remember the first sitting I had in 1950 when I dealt with the resources of the province. At that time I dealt with the timber berths that were given away in 1884 at 50 cents a thousand and I asked the government under the coalition to do something about it. In 1884 when they were first given out….

MR. FRASER: Were you here then?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Probably to some of you it seems as though I've been here that long. But year after year I have risen to my feet during the budget debate, the throne debate and under the estimates of the department of mineral resources and spoken on the need for a greater return to the people of British Columbia from the depletion of this non-renewable resource. Year after year I placed questions on the order paper, asking how many pounds of minerals were shipped out of the country or depleted and how much the government received in return for the depletion of their resources.

My turn finally came to do something about it. Even after calling year after year for a royal commission to study into, all facets of the mining industry under the previous government, nobody would respond. Well, once I got to the position of Minister of Mines it wasn't necessary any more (Laughter) to ask for a royal commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well done, Leo. Well done.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: My opportunity had come to do something about it. Since that time I've been down to Ottawa on several Mines Ministers' conferences. There was one in Victoria. I find the thinking of the federal government and the provinces, regardless of whether they are provinces run by a New Democratic Party government or a Liberal government or a Conservative government, is along the same lines as I have.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What did they do at the conference? What did they make as their goals and objectives? To obtain the optimum benefit for Canada for present and future use of minerals.

[ Page 3479 ]

I'll quote a few other sections from the federal government's brief that they presented to all the Mines Ministers. These are the questions they asked:

"Should minerals be primarily a means to expand and diversify domestic economic development?

"Should mineral production and the export of surpluses be primarily a source of government revenue to support a broad range of other social and economic objectives?

"Should the rate of mineral use be cut back out of concern for the lifestyle and well being of future generations?

"Mineral Policy Goals and Objectives.

"Relate mineral developments to social needs. "Ensure national self-determination in mineral development.

"Improve mineral conservation and use.

"Increase the return to Canadians from exportable mineral surpluses.

"Ensure mineral supply for national needs.

"Significant growth and demand for Canadian minerals is expected, a demand that potentially could lead to a tripling of Canadian mineral output between now and the end of the century.

"With such a prospect, what better time than now to marshal Canadian opinion and planning ability to ensure that this massive increase will benefit all Canadians?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK:

"If we assume no further discovery or technological progress, today's copper, lead and zinc resource probably would not last through the century. Nickel seems adequate to the year 2000, but information on some major mines was not available.

"Are we running out? Should the level of export for some minerals be reduced? This combination of available data and professional judgment indicates that for the nation generally there are sufficient known and theoretical discoverable resources of most commodities to meet overall domestic needs comfortably and to permit expanding mineral exports in this country for a period of time."

"This by no means implies that we should be complacent about the adequacy of our resources. The above figures illustrate sufficiency for the next few decades without considering the question of long-range survival. A time lag of 10 to 20 years can exist between deciding to explore for certain commodities and being ready to mine and deliver them."

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: For many years when our forefathers came across this country, they thought that there was an unlimited supply of almost everything, from the buffalo right down to oil, gas and minerals.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Let me tell you, it was only last year when we had the problem with oil and gas that it was brought to the attention of the public that those resources are limited and that they must be managed on behalf of all the people. They must be managed in the interests of the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years ago….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd advise you to read this book on copper by Ira B. Joralemon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You told us about it last year.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't have it last year. This is a book that gives the history of copper. This is how he ends one of the paragraphs:

"If the 1970 consumption increases at the rate of 4 per cent compounded, the recoverable copper found in both old and new mines in the past 40 years would be used up in less than 25 years."

MR. GIBSON: How about the sea bed?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's no bill, Mr. Speaker, that has created more consternation among a certain section of our society than Bill 31. I'm sure that the opposition will let this bill go through quite easily, because I think that most of them are for it, basically. They might oppose it for the sake of opposing, but not for the reason that it is not a good bill.

This bill has created a bonanza for the newspapers. It has created a bonanza for the pulp and paper mills.

MR. FRASER: It's the swan song for you.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm not criticizing the mining industry for opposing it, because any time that anybody gets hit in the pocketbook they'll cry. The mining industry will cry.

[ Page 3480 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly speaks from personal experience. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't forget that the mining industry in British Columbia has grown somewhat like Topsy, because the province originated practically on mining. As the years went by, they built quite an empire. The Department of Mines became more or less of a service department to the industry.

What I've been doing since I've been Mines Minister is to try and bring about a change in this picture so that we who are in charge of this non-renewable resource will be able to manage the resource and direct the industry, rather than the industry directing the department on what to do and what not to do.

The industry has used every avenue that they could find to try and have me withdraw this bill. They have written to their shareholders to write to their MLAs. They have written to the supply houses to write to their MLAs. They've even, in fact, according to some of the letters, cut off some of their orders from the supply houses to let them know that they should fight against Bill 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They have written to the prospectors. They've broken off contracts with certain prospectors in order to compel them to write to their MLAs and object to Bill 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And the full-page ads that they put out are a little bit amazing. They said that he was a vanishing breed. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the miner is a vanishing breed it will be because of the automation in the mining industry. The mining industry right today, if they could put enough automation in to mine without any miners at all, certainly would do it and the miner would be gone. The only reason that they keep the miners around is because they need them — not because they want them, but because they need them. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is going to support this bill because he spoke in the House about what the federal government was doing in regard to the resources in the provinces.

Now the last letters I got were the final gasp of the mining industry. When they found out that they couldn't get me to withdraw the bill on other grounds, then they decided to use the federal budget. The budget was thrown out, of course. But still they're saying that if we have the federal budget and those awful Liberals collecting the taxes off the resources, and we're collecting the taxes off the resources, they're not going to be able to exist.

I quote the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound:

I would like to know from the Premier, if the national government moves continually in those unilateral ways without seeking the cooperative position of all 10 provinces, what the Premier of British Columbia is going to do to ensure that our constitutional right to control our natural resources, even though they be non-renewable, remain solely in the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia…. The fact of the matter is that Ottawa should understand that we are not prepared to sit idly by and allow them to use the legislative powers they have to undermine British Columbia's control of its natural resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Great quote.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Further, the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound:

When eastern Canada — and I mean Ontario and Quebec — get in a jam, as they are today with petroleum resources, they have no hesitation in coming to the west and saying: "Oh, now we'll tax your resources, and well use all the additional tax money to help explore for more." And what the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was saying, I think, and what I say is that that's very well, but when are the industries of Ontario and Quebec going to contribute to this same kind of programme? For 100 years they've had all the breaks to support their industries and now that they are in some kind of a difficulty with natural gas, again western Canada is going to be picked clean to help them out of their problems.

That's the Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound. What about Bill 31 now? I further quote:

And there's only one reason this is done: political power in Canada is centralized in Ontario and Quebec. All we have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I think the Member for South Peace River will agree and the Premier would agree, is that before they start to dip into our natural resources we want them to contribute equally so that western Canada has some of the benefits they want.

It's not good enough for the Hon. Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner, to come out here as he did last Thursday and say: "We're going to make some tariff

[ Page 3481 ]

changes that will help things in the west." We've been after tariff changes as only one thing for 100 years. I hope that the Premier and I and the Member for South Peace are on the same basis.

The Member for South Peace River is going to vote for this legislation — I'm sure of that also.

I further quote, Mr. Speaker:

If we're going to help the rest of Canada, fine. As Canadians we should do so, but let's not do this only to secure increased political power for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

The federal government should get this loud and clear. We're not separatists in British Columbia, we're not separatists in western Canada, we just want to play our full equal role in Confederation and not to be grabbed upon every time it serves the advantage of the national federal government and its political power base in Ontario and Quebec.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) can argue against this bill I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't talked about the bill yet.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, it's all very well for the federal government to say to British Columbia under the constitution that the natural resources belong to the provinces, but by the federal budget stating that they were not going to allow the deduction of royalties from the cost of operating, they are saying to us: "We'll let you administer the resources, but we want all the returns from the resources." I think this is something that we, as legislators, have to object to.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: While I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that some Members on that side of the House have got a lot of prepared notes in regard to the amount of taxes they are going to have to pay to the federal government and the provincial government…

AN HON. MEMBER: The amount of men losing jobs!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …I am sure that they'll throw some of those notes away now, because we've got to go on the assumption that the people of the province own the resources and they've got a right to do with the resources what they wish, for the benefit of all the people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Bill 31 is the Mineral Royalties Act.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought it was the provincial government income tax Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The minerals in the Province of British Columbia have developed to a business of almost $1 billion a year. Last year it reached almost $1 billion. It didn't reach this $1 billion by any accident. It became a $1 billion industry because other countries have depleted their natural resources to the point where there are no more; and they are coming from all over the world looking for our resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And for 100 years…

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's straight bull!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …since our forefathers came into this country, we have been saying to the people that oil resources are a non-renewable resource, but minerals were free for the taking. Free for the taking!

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You only need to look at the ghost towns that have been created around the country. If those people who lived in those ghost towns could talk today, they would be in full support of Bill 31, because Bill 31 is one of the bills that is going to help to plan and bring back to the people of British Columbia a proper return on behalf of these limited resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: A ghost bill!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You know, we're going to reach the stage where not only are we going to deplete these non-renewable resources to the point where we probably won't have enough of them to carry on with and to enjoy the things we have today…. And it is my intention to prolong as long as possible the depletion of this non-renewable resource so that our children and our children's children will be able to enjoy maybe driving a car, or having a fridge in their house, or other items, because practically every item that you use today has got some mineral wealth in it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And don't forget that we are going to have to go to recycling all the waste

[ Page 3482 ]

material we have because we are one of the most wasteful nations in the world.

I was speaking to the ambassador from China the other day and he told me that there is nothing wasted there. Everything is ploughed back in and recycled for use. And this is what we will have to do with our resources if we are going to continue to give the people what they want. And when you think of production, from 1858 to 1972 we produced five billion pounds of copper. Last year we produced three-quarters of a billion pounds — 15 per cent in one year of all the copper we have produced from 1858 to 1972.

It just shows you how much quicker, how quickly, we are depleting the resource now. If we keep increasing as the record states — statistics state that we are going to triple our demands in the next 15 years — it means that we're going to be lucky if we have sufficient minerals by the turn of the century to carry on in the lifestyle that we know.

Mr. Chairman, the big ads that were in the paper about employment said that there were 14,500 men employed in the mining industry just last year — 14,500 men in the mining industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The mining industry is not a labour-intensive industry any more. Years ago, when my dad mined and had to use a double-jack and a single-jack, it took a lot of workers. But today they can knock down a million or two million tons of ore with one blast. There's not many men in the mines today.

To say to the public that we must deplete this natural resource for the sake of employment is not valid. It is not valid. We want to use this resource as a base to fan out our whole style of living. The resource should be protected and guarded as much as possible and used to the best advantage of all the people.

When we look at the employment picture in 1928 we had 8,835 men who produced $47 million of value. In 1970 we had 15,360 that produced $310 million. In 1973 we had 14,500 — less men — who produced pretty nearly $1 billion worth.

Interjections

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, don't give me that. In coal, all right; then we'll go to coal.

In 1928 we employed 5,334 men who produced 2.6 million tons of coal. In 1972, 1,985 — about one-third of the men — produced 6 million tons of coal.

So when you listen to the advertising that it's a labour-intensive industry, it's no such thing at all.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you've got some introductions to make….

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you talk about Bill 31 later?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we adjourn to go to the lounge I would like, if I may, to introduce a delegation from the United Kingdom and the Mediterranean who are sitting in the Members' gallery.

They include two co-chairmen, joint chairmen, of the delegation from the United Kingdom: the Rt. Hon. J.A. Stodart, Mr. William Baxter, MP, and the Earl Ferrers; from Gibralter, the Hon. Joseph Caruana; from Guernsey, Mr. B.A. Le Tissier; from the Isle of Man, Mr. Percy Radcliffe; from Jersey, Mr. Bernard Binnington; from Northern Ireland, Mr. John Ferguson; Mr. Andrew Bowden from the United Kingdom, as well as Mr. William E. Garrett, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Robert Woof, and the secretary of the delegation, Mr. Edward James Potter; and from Ottawa, of the Canadian staff for this visit, Lt. Col. T.G. Bowie, I believe, and Mr. Harry Davin.

I would like, on behalf of the Legislature, to welcome all the delegation.

I should add that I overlooked the fact that the two chairmen of the delegation are on the floor of the House.

All Members are invited to the Ned De Beck Lounge immediately upon adjournment for a reception.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to meeting the members of the delegation at the reception.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.

[ Page 3483 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on pages 3457 and 3458:

16 The Hon. David Barrett to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 16) intituled Real Property Tax Deferment Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 9 of the definition of "eligible property": By deleting all the words after the words "not exceeding five acres" and substituting the words "or not exceeding the minimum-sized parcel into which a municipality or a regional district permits land in that municipality or regional district to be subdivided, whichever is the greater, and on which the owner certifies that he intends to construct a single family dwelling to be used for residential purposes;".

Section 5(1)(c)(ii), line 1: By inserting, after the word "widow", the words "or a widower".

Section 8(2), line 1: By inserting, after the word "widow", the words "or a widower".

Section 8(2), line 3: By deleting the word "her".

Section 8: By adding, after subsection (2), the following as subsection (3):

"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an owner of a vacant parcel of land who has entered into an agreement under section 5(2) constructs a single family dwelling on that vacant parcel during the term of the agreement, the outstanding amount of the real property taxes and interest thereon deferred up to and including the thirty-first day of December, 1975, required to be repaid under the agreement shall be reduced, if the single-family dwelling is constructed and occupied not later than

(a) the thirty-first day of December, 1975, by a percentage of one hundred per cent; or

(b) the thirty-first day of December, 1976, by a percentage of eighty per cent; or

(c) the thirty-first day of December, 1977, by a percentage of sixty per cent; or

(d) the thirty-first day of December, 1978, by a percentage of forty per cent; or

(e) the thirty-first day of December, 1979, by a percentage of twenty per cent."

The following amendments are referred to on page 3458 et seq.:

112 The Hon. J.G. Lorimer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 112) intituled Islands Trust Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, subsection (1), lines 3 and 4: By deleting the words "during pleasure" and substituting the words "for a term of two years, but a person may be reappointed for a further term or terms".

Section 3, subsection (2), lines 2 and 3: By deleting the words "the general trustees shall, in respect of general affairs, and the local trustees shall, in respect of local affairs," and substituting the words "the trust committee having jurisdiction shall,".

Section 3, subsection (2), clause (e), lines 3 and 4: By deleting the words "by general trustees or local trustees" and substituting the words "by it".

Section 8: By deleting section 8(2).

Section 11: By deleting section 11.