[ Page 3927 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3927

Assessment Act (Bill 15 I ). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3927

Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act (Bill 134).

Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3927

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3927

Mr. Wallace — 3927

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3928

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3928

Mr. Phillips — 3928

Ms. Brown — 3928

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3929

Mr. Rolston — 3931

Mr. Wallace — 3932

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3935

Division on adjournment of debate — 3936

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 3936

Mr. Gardom — 3941

Mr. Richter — 3943

Division on the amendment — 3945

Mr. Gibson — 3945

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 159 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill 151.

ASSESSMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create a single assessment Act to supercede the existing multiplicity of assessment legislation.

Statutes presently containing provisions relating to assessment taxation are Assessment Equalization Act, Municipal Act, Taxation Act, Vancouver Charter and Public Schools Act. Many sections of this bill are taken verbatim with only minor variations from the existing statutes but the bill is confined strictly to matters pertaining to assessments. All references to taxation, including exemption from taxation, have been omitted.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that because these amendments deal with the specifics in the preceding Act the best time to deal with it is in committee, where detailed discussion is more appropriate.

I move second reading of Bill 151.

Motion approved.

Bill 151, Assessment Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 134, Mr. Speaker.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the principle behind this bill is to establish the Institute of Technology in British Columbia and give it autonomy — in other words, their own board of governors.

Prior to the presenting of this bill, as I think the Members of this House are aware, the B.C. Institute of Technology was directly under the provincial government. All employees were civil servants. The thing which disturbed me particularly was that I didn't feel that the operation was running quite as efficiently as it could under this situation, because whenever supplies were needed, et cetera, they only had one channel, directly through to the government.

On the other hand, the creation of a board also will give an opportunity to have faculty and students and staff represented in the governing body. I think we will find that this will create a more community-oriented type of institute and I am most pleased to move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the Minister of Education, but perhaps I could ask when she sums up this debate that she be a little more precise in the position that the staff will occupy at the BCIT as a result of this bill.

As she knows and I know and, indeed, all Members know, we have had a continuing and festering problem dealing with the certification of the B.C. provincial government employees who represent this particular group of people, who are essentially teachers.

I see in section 7 that there is reference to collective bargaining, but I wonder whether Or not she might like to indicate whether she's had discussions with the employees concerned — in other words, the teachers of BCIT, whether they have indicated their approval or this particular section and whether or not there are going to be continuing discussions.

I appreciate the bill. I think it's a necessary thing and a necessary step to take the BCIT out of its rather peculiar position. I will want to discuss it further and bring forward perhaps suggestions at committee stage, after I've had discussions with the members of the teaching staff at BCIT.

During the 22 months of this government's life this has been a continuing problem. I am a little disappointed that she didn't hit it head on when she spoke introducing this bill. Perhaps she'll deal with this question when she sums up.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just wanted to make a few comments because this bill, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) remembers, is the outcome of earlier comments that he made that at a certain date in the future the staff of the Institute of Technology would be taken out of the public service employees out of Bill 75, and very clearly have their own autonomy and have the

[ Page 3928 ]

opportunity to select their own bargaining unit. I've read the letter which was circulated on May 28 to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly, and I understand that subsequent to the tabling of the bill the staff of the BCIT are not convinced that the bill in fact very clearly takes them out of the realm of the Public Service Act, and gives them in fact the clear-cut assurance that they can select their own bargaining unit and bargain collectively as an autonomous body similar to the universities.

I listened to the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) ask the question also, but I understand that the staff have met with the Minister and have been given an assurance that in fact the intent which was expressed by the Provincial Secretary back in November, 1973, that when the BCIT became a fully fledged institute with its own administrative structure similar to a university the new Act would no longer apply and they would be free to choose a bargaining agent independent of the civil service….

I think this is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, and in fact seems to be the central concern which has been expressed by the staff of BCIT. As I say, in recent discussions with them they feel that this bill must include an amendment which very specifically states that the provisions of Bill 75 do not apply and that the BCIT staff can apply at once for certification. Apparently the legislation as it reads suggests that under such a situation as this up to a period of 12 months after this bill is passed they might still be subject to the provisions of Bill 75. As I said this afternoon, I'm not learned in the legal profession, but I want the House and the Minister to know very clearly from the discussions I've had with the staff that their legal advice is to the effect that this bill, while well motivated to give them the right to be an autonomous body and to select a bargaining unit and to bargain collectively, in fact does not provide what they believe the Minister intended.

I understand that the Minister met with the staff and there was hope that the Minister will bring in amendments to clarify this issue that I've raised.

There are one or two other general points, Mr. Speaker, which might better be covered in debate in committee. The staff certainly are unhappy about the provisions of the bill which don't specifically give definite direction about the composition of the advisory committees and various other aspects. I think this would be better dealt with under committee debate.

I wonder if in closing second reading the Minister could tell us first of all whether the staff are correct in their apprehension that the bill does not meet the intent in terms of their right to collective bargaining right away. And if this is so, perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether she has agreed to introduce the appropriate amendment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that is quite correct, and the staff are also correct. We met for a considerable time yesterday afternoon — the staff representatives with the deputy Minister of Labour. I want to assure the Member and others who are interested that an amendment will be forthcoming to clear that up.

Motion approved.

Bill 134, Institute of Technology (British Columbia) 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, to put those bills into committee that need detailed debate, I now call on Bill 105.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving second reading of this bill. You know, Sure it's a tenants' charter of rights, it is also certainty for landlords in their dealings with tenants, and in their contractual relations. It is a break for the builders because we do have provision whereby builders can build and receive a fair return when they build rental accommodation. But I do think that it is a bill which should be discussed in committee, including the unjust eviction clauses, including the restraint in terms of prices, which will appeal particularly to the Conservatives because of Mr. Stanfield's recent statements, so I move second reading.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition certainly realize that there should be a Landlord and Tenant Act. We recognize that the landlords should have protection; we also recognize that the tenants should have protection. But there are a couple of sections in this bill that I don't say I agree with entirely, and we are going to discuss that in the committee stage.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I couldn't allow this to pass, Mr. Speaker, without saying a few words in support of it.

This is a very good Act, it tries to be fair both to the landlord and to the tenant, and to a large extent it seems to succeed in doing this. I am a little bit disappointed that my recommendation for collective bargaining was not included in this Act, but it certainly is my hope that….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Caucus leak?

[ Page 3929 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my bill is on the order paper, Bill 68, calling for collective….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I can't do it. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You are entitled to an advertising plug. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: And I hope if the Attorney-General is considering any amendments that he will certainly take a bill, which shall remain nameless and numberless, into account when he brings these amendments down.

I would also like to say a few words about security deposits. I realize that there are from time to time one or two tenants who might abuse an apartment, so they are necessary, but I think that they tend to serve as a hardship on tenants with fixed incomes. I think it is very difficult for a senior citizen, for example, who is trying to live on just over $200 a month, to find the equivalent of two or two-and-a-half months' rent in order to deal with a security deposit. I certainly would hope that the Attorney-General would consider amending this Act to remove security deposits, if he considers bringing in any amendments.

I think the main thing we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to realize that this bill cannot be viewed in isolation. It has to be tagged to the whole business of increasing housing, so I would like, if the federal government is listening now that there is an election on, to call on them to remove their 11 per cent tax on building materials so we can do something….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I would like to take this opportunity….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because if this bill is to be really effective we shall have to start doing some real building. Now that the federal government is asking us to return them to government, this is their opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and remove this tax. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty significant bill that has finally come to the floor of this House for debate. I think it is absolutely astounding…the farcical introduction that we heard from the Hon. Attorney-General and the hopeless attempt of the Member for Vancouver-Burrard to support this legislation only indicates the trouble which the government is facing in its legislation.

We are dealing with a subject which is of intense interest to a large segment of the people of British Columbia, whether they be landlords or tenants. The action which we are taking in this legislation will have a significant effect upon both of those groups in our society.

It may even be that the impact of this legislation upon those who are tenants will be greater than what it will be on landlords. I think it is astounding that this legislation should come before us in this way and be treated with such…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Callous disregard.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Member …callous disregard by the Minister who has the carriage of this legislation, and other members of the government party.

One of the problems which we have in the crisis — I say crisis, Mr. Speaker, in the full knowledge that politicians are accused of speaking in hyperbole, but I think that when we have vacancy rates as low as they are in the Province of British Columbia, when there is virtually no rental accommodation available to our people, young or old, we must speak of it as a crisis.

This problem — this crisis — is only going to be resolved by increasing the supply.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that a truism?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's a truism, and I will give you another truism, Mr. Attorney-General: this kind of legislation is not going to increase the supply because as surely as you sit in your seat, Mr. Attorney-General, this legislation is not going to increase the supply.

And I will give you another one, Mr. Speaker: responsible examination of what is taking place in the Province of British Columbia today indicates that rental accommodation on the drawing boards and being considered by those people who are in the business of providing rental accommodation, to the number of 6,000 rental units has been cancelled in the Province of British Columbia since the introduction of this legislation.

Today there are under active consideration for development as rental accommodation, 200 units.

We have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who has done nothing except to create confusion in the housing field. He hasn't even made a competent survey of what our requirements are, let alone what is taking place in the Province of British Columbia to

[ Page 3930 ]

meet those requirements.

Here we are bringing forward a piece of legislation which with all of this involvement is only going to intensify the problem rather than to resolve it.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which has been on our books for weeks, should have been brought forward for debate in second reading shortly after its introduction in this House. There is no demonstrable reason why it has sat until this late date.

Having been brought forward for second reading, this legislation, above all of the bills which have been introduced in the session, should have been sent to a select standing committee of this Legislature so that landlords and tenants would have the opportunity to meet with Members of this House and make a minute examination of the several sections and the consequences which it would have for each of those groups.

We know that the landlord group has submitted proposals to the Hon. Attorney-General, indicating the inconsistencies and conflicts contained in the many sections. We know that the tenant groups have done the same, and we have no amendments. Obviously the government proposes to move with this legislation as it sits before us at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not right.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Attorney-General, having made such a brief introduction of this legislation, is to suggest from his seat that he indeed does have amendments designed to improve this legislation, then it is certainly a farce that we are debating the principle of this legislation without having any indication of the ways in which the government proposes to change it.

We know, Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of legislation introduced earlier in this House, that the government has had the opportunity and has taken the Opportunity of a second look at other bills. If you've taken a second look at this bill, Mr. Attorney-General, and haven't had the kindness to advise this House of changes which you propose, then truly you do us a disservice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: No change in principle.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No change in principle. The principle is involved in the details of this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: In second reading it always was.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the Premier carries on. We know what second reading is all about. Even if he'd only been here one year, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier, we know what second reading is all about. We also fully recognize that the government brings in the amendments and those amendments pass because of the docile back-bench that they have — in spite of representations made by such Members as the Member for Burrard.

Mr. Speaker, we are here establishing a rentalsman which, if the Members have read carefully the sections which deal with his responsibilities, must lead them to the conclusion that the person and his staff who are to discharge those responsibilities must have the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

We know that the government has already announced who the rentalsman will be. We know that the government is already advertising for the senior staff which that, officer will require in order to conduct his responsibilities. That's been going on for weeks. Why then has this legislation been delayed for debate?

MR. WALLACE: Like the community resource boards: set them up and then pass the bills.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says to me: like the community resource boards — bring in the legislation, move as if it were law, create in the community an atmosphere of uncertainty, both for landlords and for tenants, and then bring the bill on for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this legislation. I look forward with interest to see this legislation succeed. But there are inconsistencies in the many sections of this bill, certainly so far as the rentalsman's responsibility is concerned, which leave me in grave doubts as to the way in which this legislation will serve those people who depend upon it most — namely, landlords and tenants.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've had other legislation brought in this House in the last few days indicating that the government is prepared to single out segments of our society and provide them with subsidies in order that they can carry on their responsibilities. We had one yesterday in the amendments to the Energy Act, where the government is obviously prepared, by the making of grants, to enable people in this province to carry on their business.

But in this legislation Mr. Speaker, for some reason or other the government, having singled out the landlords for particular regulation, has not at the same time come forward with any suggestion that those landlords or their tenants are to be subsidized in any way in what is a joint responsibility to supply and receive essential housing accommodation in the Province of British Columbia.

For some reason or other this government is unwilling to face up to its responsibilities and to

[ Page 3931 ]

attack one of the most serious problems we have in British Columbia today — namely, the lack of housing accommodation for the people who desire it. In particular, it's a lack of housing accommodation for that segment of our society who prefer to be tenants.

The government is absolutely unmindful of their plight and with this legislation does nothing to resolve it.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, Mr. Speaker, I live in a semi-rural, largely rural riding. In fact, in Mission City there are only five apartments; I have more apartments in Maple Ridge.

I want to assure that Member that there have been many discussions by Members in our party — even backbenchers. Among other things, I think this is a real attempt to establish responsibility on both sides. In fact, though we're not supposed to look at the details of the Act, I think it is important to say at the very outset that we hope that the relationship and the conditions of the relationship are hammered out very clearly in this Act. We are, among other things, wanting it to be in print — even posted — the kind of relationship that will be worked out in the tenancy agreement.

I want to say at the outset in this new Landlord and Tenant Act that this, I hope, develops very clear-cut ground-rules for landlords and tenants and that there is confidence, that there are responsibilities and that these are Worked out.

We're not supposed to look, but in section 11 the tenancy agreement is, I think, very clearly worked out. I hope that there will be — for instance, in my area a fairly common agreement, a somewhat universal agreement for, say, the Fraser Valley or for metropolitan Vancouver so that in clear language the conduct can be spelled out.

We hear so much. I must say that it was news to me — having not lived in an apartment for a decade — in an area where there are many apartments that there are such tragic evictions of families, often not really knowing why they are being evicted. So one of the sections spends a lot of time dealing with just cause for eviction.

If a person is evicted — and often there are very good reasons for a person being evicted, and in committee we'll look at those reasons — at least the person should know; it should be in writing.

So I'm hoping that that, along with other sections, you know, establishes responsibility. The Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) and all the Members are alarmed that for five years there's been very little in the way of rental accommodation built in metropolitan Vancouver. We're told by….

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, there are a multitude of reasons, but the fact is that 1969-70 seems to be statistically the last time that we were…. I believe that 11,500 units were built at that time — and about 450 last year. Obviously there's a very strange problem. We want to address ourselves. I believe that section 28(l)(c) addresses it, and again we'll look at that.

We have spent time with the people in management and construction and certainly the tenant people. We are told that this section 1s encouraging to people building the rentals. But there is both an escalation and a five-year clause to ensure a decent rate of return. That will have to be defined.

At least this government, I think, in many public utterances says that we realize if money…. In fact, we're told that money is now worth about 10 or 10.25 per cent for 90-day money. We realize that there's got to be a comparable return. If a person's going to lay out a lot of money for an apartment, we realize that a great deal more risk capital must go into this.

I hope that this is true. We can talk about establishing a relationship but, by George, at the end of the line we've got to have an awful lot more rental accommodation.

We, I believe, are very fortunate in having a rentalsman. We've been able to find a rentalsman. Admittedly, he's going to have to have a great deal of patience, a great deal of wisdom. At times it looks like a superhuman job. But he's going to have people working for him. He's going to have deputies. He's going to be able, I hope, to operate in a very fast, semi-judicial way to bring a sense of relationship and responsibility and, I hope, stimulate the people that are building these facilities.

We're also open to municipalities that can, with the rental review board in an area, if they feel they can, manage to look after the adjustments of rents themselves. Yet the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the final powers. So I would like to say that there have been a lot of consultations — admittedly, three-and-a-half months of meeting groups, many, many meetings out of this House. It's a very, very difficult problem, a problem which many politicians, I don't think, can claim to solve in a simplistic way.

I believe this is an attempt to at least establish a relationship, a responsibility. I empathize with the landlord. Many of us, I'm sure, have been called out to see people with fourplexes and duplexes that are getting smashed; or they haven't been able to evict people, often for very understandable reasons.

We want to give fairness to the owners as well as to the people who live in those facilities, not necessarily living there from choice, but because financially there is really no other choice for them.

So I support this legislation. I expect that there will be amendments — the Attorney-General has promised that. There has certainly been a lot of

[ Page 3932 ]

consultation. This is something where I think, politicians in humility don't really seek any bowing points on this one, because it is dealing with 200,000 people who are renting, and I gather,100,000 people in large and in tiny rental situations, or providing rental accommodation.

I support this legislation. I believe it is human. I believe, above all things, that it is going to promote a healthier, more responsible climate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker….

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Be fair.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'll be fair, don't get excited. The Member for Shuswap asked me to be fair, and that's what I'll try to be.

The fact is that we're dealing with a human relationship between a landlord and a tenant, and since there are so many day-to-day influences which are very important to both the landlord and tenant, let's say that it's very difficult to adequately serve the interests of both these two parties. But I respect this legislation in that regard; it obviously is an attempt to balance the interests of these two parties.

I'm not saying, Mr. Speaker, that it achieves that goal, but I am saying that it is a worthwhile effort in that direction and that we should discuss it in some detail, not necessarily on second reading.

But I was disappointed by the Attorney-General's very cursory introduction of this bill on the pretext that, of course, we would go into the necessary detail in committee stage.

Now I don't know where the Attorney-General's been lately, but it seems that provincially we're all agreed there's a housing crisis. As recently as the 6 o'clock national CBC news tonight it was announced that all three federal parties have recognized that housing is the second most serious problem in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the first?

MR. WALLACE: Inflation. And I've got a few comments to make about your small little remark about the Conservatives when you introduced this bill for second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that if the Attorney-General is paying attention to the very vital aspects of public affairs in this province and in this country, he must surely realize, and there's been a plethora of information in the past week or two in the newspapers….

AN HON. MEMBER: A what?

MR. WALLACE: A plethora. I know you have trouble with my English around here, but I'll repeat the word — "plethora" — it means an abundance of information. As a minister of the cloth I thought your Latin would serve you in good stead.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that ownership of accommodation is all but impossible for citizens in Canada of average or less than average income. And that is a shocking indictment of a supposedly enlightened era when provincial and national governments claim to be aware of and responsive to the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, health care, et cetera, of citizens.

I read, for example, one of the latest housing proposals that was put forward in the federal election in an endeavour to help the housing situation and make house ownership possible for young couples and other citizens, and you had to have an income of $18,500 a year. Now I ask you, what percentage of people in Canada, of anybody earning an income, is earning $18,500 year?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think that we have to try and rise above the partisan aspect of this. In fact, I took trouble when I made that statement a moment ago not to identify the political party which was putting forward the proposal. But the fact is that this is a fact of life in Canada today that the ordinary, average income-earning person hasn't a hope of owning a home under present circumstances.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Especially in B.C.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know to what degree it will particularly affect B.C., but the figures I've seen quoted for other cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg show the situation is really depressing when you stop to picture yourself 20 or 30 years ago trying to get a home after you were married.

I know that isn't specific to this bill, but it does relate to the principle of this bill inasmuch as many married couples who would want to own their homes have absolutely no alternative but to rent, and this bill deals with the relationship between a landlord and a person renting accommodation. So if there ever was a time when the balance and the validity of relationships between landlord and tenant was important, surely the time is now. I'm not saying that it's a good idea that we have to have this tremendous pressure on the relationship simply because those who want to own homes have no hope of doing so.

But again, without trying to even be partisan

[ Page 3933 ]

about this, these are the facts: people have tremendous financial difficulty in owning a home and therefore the number of people renting accommodation must progressively rise in our present situation.

I just want to comment on the repetitively smart remarks which the Attorney-General tries to make about the Conservative national policy of incomes and price control. We've had two or three little jibes from the Attorney-General in the last day or two….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think you'll survive.

MR. WALLACE: I think I'll survive these jibes — yes, I think so. But I think I'll also reply to them.

The rather smug way in which the Attorney-General tries to suggest that because this kind of control is being brought in that the Conservative Party would automatically agree with it….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You should.

MR. WALLACE: We will agree with your control problems when you take the whole ball of wax and don't pick off bits and pieces in isolation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want the whole thing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How about the freedom of Scotland?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, let's not get back to that. (Laughter.) The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) isn't here tonight, and having tackled a Strachan, I'm not too keen to tackle a Macdonald on the same thing. (Laughter.)

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, this balance between landlord and tenant is important for the very, very frank reason I have outlined.

One of the central thrusts of the Landlord and Tenant Act is to give the rentalsman — and we will get into specific sections later — but it gives the rentalsman the power to receive an application, investigate here and determine Tent increases. Even then we have the contradiction, which I think was referred to by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), that later in the bill we've got cabinet power to overrule the rentalsman.

At any rate, the Minister must acknowledge that the central thrust of this bill is rent control. We've had rent freeze; we've had a gasoline price increase; now we're talking about some control over home heating-oil prices; and we have, during these latter days and weeks of this session, a piecemeal approach in an attempt, a well motivated but thoroughly misguided attempt, in my view, to help the citizen who is absolutely imprisoned in the ever-increasing rate of inflation in Canada, B.C. included.

I just don't feel that this piecemeal attempt, a bit here and a bit there, this rent freeze today and gasoline prices tomorrow…. As I asked this afternoon — are we going to get into the control of food prices? — because surely food and shelter have got to be the two basics, and we're busily controlling or introducing substantial controls in the area of shelter.

I just feel that one of the disadvantages of this bill is that it is just a part of a much wider problem which maybe can only be solved nationally. But if it can only be solved or appreciably affected nationally, at least I think this Minister might pay a little more respect to the logic and consistency of the standard of the federal government, that in fact you cannot isolate in this way rents or gasoline or any other very essential product in isolation from all products and in isolation from all forms of income.

This bill essentially attempts to give justice to the tenant, but we have had no related legislation to give incentive to the investor to build more accommodation. That's why we have a problem. Supply and demand — it's that simple.

We wouldn't have one-tenth of the problems we have in the accommodation field for tenants if there were any kind of choice of accommodation. There is a .3 per cent vacancy rate or some such figure in the lower mainland for rental accommodation. We needn't rehash the debate that we had on the rent-freeze stabilization Act. But basically the same kind of logic applies in this debate as applied in the rent-freeze debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same kind of lack of logic.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I feel that regardless of the shortage of accommodation there must always be a landlord and tenant Act which, as I said at the outset, attempts to balance the interests of both parties. I certainly buy that. But I repeat that there should be companion legislation which will get to the real root of the problem — that is, the necessary incentives to the investor and to the construction industry to go into the field of rental accommodation construction.

I think that the Attorney-General would agree…. At least, I would ask him in winding up the debate: would it not make sense, if there were a substantial vacancy rate and the tenant had some reasonable choice for the Tents being asked, that this would cut down on the incidence of gouging and of unfair play by the landlord who knows very well that the tenant is seared out of his pants because he knows that if he argues with the landlord and gets evicted, where does he go?

[ Page 3934 ]

I've got one example right now, Mr. Speaker, as recently as the other day. A lady phoned me who is in an Oak Bay apartment with 30 or 40 suites. Twenty-seven of the tenants, I understand, have been presented with a rent increase demand that is illegal; it is more than 8 per cent.

I have spent quite a bit of time in the last two days trying to get one of these tenants to give me the written proof of this demand. I have a letter on my desk today from the original lady who contacted me saying that she has contacted numerous tenants in the apartment, and not one of them will provide the written proof on which I would certainly be willing to bring the matter to the attention of your department.

Interjections.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That's why we need a rentalsman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You need a place where people can go easily for help in that kind of situation.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): She should go to the Attorney-General. He won't talk to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member save his argument for when he speaks?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm only trying to point out the very serious nature of the accommodation problem and that the reason for the problem is simply lack of rental units. While this bill is intended to give justice to the landlord and the tenant, I just happen to believe that the situation is so serious and so bad that Solomon himself couldn't write this bill to meet the needs of the present landlords and tenants.

As the Member for Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says, Solomon certainly wasn't around when this bill was written anyway. But even if he were — and I realize that that is asking rather a lot — he couldn't write a bill that would meet the needs of the two parties in the present absence of an adequate amount of accommodation.

I don't think that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was exaggerating one little bit when he used the word "crisis." It is a crisis. It is the number two problem in our society today after inflation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's why we've got the bill.

MR. WALLACE: I just feel that the bill, well-motivated as it is, should have associated legislation such as the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax, or some more specific commitment with details. But then, of course, this government is not very good at providing a lot of detail with its legislation; we've been through that on the Energy Act.

There is not the detail on the 6 per cent mortgages that we would like to know so that we can analyse how realistic or otherwise the recent press release of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is.

We feel that the commitment by the Premier of this province in favour of tax incentives to build apartments is welcome. But all we've had from him is a statement in this House that he is in favour of trying to resurrect that idea or aspect of federal taxation which was removed by the federal government.

In this particular bill I just feel that even the best and very wisest attempts are doomed to problems simply because the real problem — which is to create rental accommodation — has not in any way been tackled by this government.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, while we certainly should be into other details and other parts of the bill, I do wonder what the legality is of appointing a Rentalsman before the bill is even passed. We've had a former example of confusion and public dismay over the community resource board Act. We have half-baked and ill-organized elections of citizens to boards. They don't know how to get elected, whether they are eligible or, indeed, what their functions are.

Mr. Speaker, this bill in some ways repeats the example of the community resource board legislation. It's half implemented before it even comes up for debate in the House.

I always assumed that implementation followed proclamation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes you get bills that are never implemented. This one is half implemented already.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That's the whole point, Mr. Speaker. I'm just wondering what would happen if there were some unforeseen Circumstances. Our life is full of unforeseen circumstances, M T. Attorney-General, as you well know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a half-baked bill and it's half implemented.

MRS. JORDAN: You're a lousy cook.

MR. WALLACE: If this bill, for some reason or another, were not finally passed and proclaimed, who is going to pay the rentalsman $39,000 a year?

[ Page 3935 ]

MR. FRASER: The Attorney-General is going to pay him out of his own pocket.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be a red-faced Liberal.

MR. WALLACE: He'll be a red-faced Liberal. I've heard of red-necks, but this would be a red face.

I'm really serious, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know, and I would like the Attorney-General to tell us when he winds up second reading: has a specific commitment been made by this government to Barrie Clark? What salary is he to be paid, and what contractual agreement has been reached with him? Is some very specific commitment has been made, how can you make that commitment without the legislation even having been debated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's subject to the legislation.

MR. WALLACE: You know, we've had some examples in the department of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) of people being engaged; and shortly afterwards things don't work out. Then the taxpayer is faced with a $70,000 bill to buy off the commissioner of education, or Mr. Adams, or I don't know who else. Supposing something went wrong with the legislation and we don't have a Rentalsman. Who is going to pay Mr. Barrie Clark for the financial commitment made to him?

These are some of the points about which I think this House is entitled to know in the course of second reading and certainly in the course of committee stage. We have a great deal more to ask on specific aspects.

The final point brings us back to power again. We are always talking about power in this House. I wonder if the Attorney-General, in winding up the debate, could reaffirm what seems to be obvious in the bill.

In the final analysis, regardless of what the Rentalsman says, the cabinet has the power, clearly described in section 59, to overrule the rentalsman and make its own decisions about rent increases. Could the Minister just confirm that? Section 59, Mr. Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member for Cariboo for the first time tonight.

I rise in support of this bill. The need for this bill, of course, was created by the friends of the opposition, by those people that you have depended on for so many years. You know, the good free-enterprise system; the private-enterprise system that says supply and demand. But the supply didn't become short in the last short while.

I keep wondering with awe when I listen to those speeches over there about how suddenly we're short of housing in this province. Suddenly. What a lot of hooey!

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't say that.

HON. MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is that is what has been indicated in those kind of speeches.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Listen to what was said.

HON. MR. COCKE: Here's the headshrinker just back for an interlude, telling me I'm mixed up. You haven't heard what anybody has said in this House over the last few days.

MR. McGEER: I've been listening tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he was a headshrinker, he couldn't do anything for you.

HON. MR. COCKE: This is the physiological headshrinker and there's a psychological headshrinker. There are two different kinds.

MR. FRASER: There's no headshrinker who could help you….

HON. MR. COCKE: You're a good judge of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we get back to tenants?

HON. MR. COCKE: And how about landlords? We all have a great concern.

It is this piecemeal system that we're trying to assist by bringing in legislation that will give some semblance of order in this whole area of landlord and tenancy. When I listen to the Member for Oak Bay in support of his federal leader…. We sometimes wonder how long he'll be his federal leader from all of the movement that's going on across the floor. But, in any event, when I hear him talking about rent freeze today and what about food tomorrow, with his federal leader calling for some kind of a freeze that he's not quite able to explain across the board Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: If our federal leader is talking in terms of rollback where necessary, he understands.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not necessarily rollback.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. He understands that crazy system where sometimes. supply and

[ Page 3936 ]

demand does work. But one place it isn't working is right now in this whole question of tenancy. That's why the Landlord and Tenant Act, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, There will be a Landlord and Tenant Act, there will be a rentalsman in this province to serve the needs of the people. There is support for that kind of situation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's a disorderly House. On that account, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Couldn't slip it through, eh?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 17

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill 31.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: We are on the amendment which would delete the word "now" from the motion, and substitute therefore the words "in six months hence."

MRS. JORDAN: The last moments of this House, Mr. Speaker, were so interesting that it is a little difficult to gather one's thoughts on more serious subjects.

The position of the debate at this time, Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, is an amendment to the main motion by the official opposition to hoist the bill for six months. The Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says that it is the story so far.

I take heart, Mr. Speaker, because it makes me feel, with his happy smile and saying that, that he is listening to the debate, and that he is seriously giving consideration to doing the right thing and the responsible thing in encouraging his colleague, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), to hoist the bill for six months. Is that Correct?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It won't be necessary if you keep on talking.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't know whether that is a threat or a promise.

There have been a number of arguments put forth, Mr. Speaker, from many individual people in this province who are not even directly involved in the mining industry, the many allied businesses in this province that are indirectly involved in the mining industry, from those workers in the mines themselves and their families and from those who are in the mining industry directly.

It is not, as has been suggested by the Minister and many of the cabinet member§ of the cabinet bench, a matter of just big companies. It is a much more fundamental issue that we are concerned with. I would like to point out to the Minister that he is not showing the recognition he should of the whole warp and woof of the economy of British Columbia.

I pointed out the other day that this bill in itself has been taken by this Minister in isolation from any consideration of the whole economic pattern in British Columbia and, as I mentioned, without any consideration to the economic picture, nationally and internationally, and what is described now as "jitters."

I explained to the Minister that this revolved around considerable concern. I went into some detail about spiralling interest rates that result in the impending drying up of capital for major financing, and even more serious problems of the drying up of capital for small business operations which would, in relating to this bill which we are asking to have delayed for six months, affect not only small mining companies and small prospectors who need capital to carry on a more intensified search, but many of the small businesses that are related to the mining

[ Page 3937 ]

industry.

I pointed out to him that the prime interest rate is at a record high at this time. It is a matter of serious concern — not only that the capital is drying up for short-term financing, but that the high interest rate is making it uneconomic for many small industries and many large industries, even if they can get the capital, to borrow it on an economic basis.

I pointed out to him that it was not only short-term financing that was a matter of concern; it was the long-term financing, which is usually done through bond issues and stocks, and the fact that the bond issues today in high-risk financing are not an attractive investment to large investors or to small investors. This is having a direct action on the appeal of stocks.

I was most interested, Mr. Speaker, to notice that I gave my speech yesterday and based it on as recent information as I had found on the weekend; and I see that today in The Daily Colonist there is a headline: "For Students of Fiscal Fiascos: Risk Capital Latest Crisis."

I would like to quote one or two paragraphs, because this points out so clearly, right here in Victoria, what I was talking about yesterday. It should be one more reason for the Minister to listen not only to the criticism and the concerns that the Member for North Okanagan has brought up regarding the isolation of this bill in its thinking in relation to current economic concerns well beyond the control of British Columbia.

This article is by Mr. George Gibson, and he opens by a most timely suggestion:

"If you are tired of hearing about the energy crisis, you may perhaps turn with relief, but with alarm, to a new problem in the North American economy, the risk-capital crisis."

This is exactly what I am trying to point out to the Minister, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman to whom he is referring in his article is a key figure in the U.S. investment industry, Mr. John Whitehead of New York, who was speaking here in Victoria at the Empress Hotel at a convention yesterday.

He made a number of points, but I would like to pick two or three. He said — and this is quoting Mr. Whitehead from the article:

"The entire world, and the United States in particular, is in the early stages of a severe capital shortage, the serious effects of the oil shortage and other shortages in paper, chemical and other products that our economy is coping with today. This capital shortage is reflected not by long lines at filling stations, but by double-digit interest rates, and severely depressed stock prices."

He goes on to say…and I would just remind the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that historically Canada has followed in the steps, or the wake, of the United States, because it is a much more influential economy than we are. We are not yet in a position in Canada to withstand the same shocks that affect the United States. So what is happening there now may very well be applicable in Canada and in British Columbia very shortly. That is a reason why the Minister should withdraw the bill for six months: to examine such concerns as this, that are very legitimate, and to study how his bill will be affected by the matters that we are discussing now.

       "Our nation's needs have simply outstripped our people's ability and willingness to invest. In addition, our capital markets are being called upon to supply funds for investment in a vast array of new types of projects and facilities. These kinds of [illegible] investment opportunities should in any normal environment be expected to result in long lines of investors, eager to risk their savings in these new and promising projects. 

"But what do we find? We find that the rate of savings in the U.S. has dropped to a new low, the lowest rate of savings of any developed country in the free world. We find that such savings as there are flow into safe havens — like guaranteed savings accounts, life insurance, corporate pension funds, and not into the risk securities."

That is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to point out to the Minister yesterday — that these are very real instances. High-risk capital, short-term capital, is becoming short, and long-term capital is becoming short — and this at a time when the mining industry in British Columbia, in fact all our basic resource industries in British Columbia, should be encouraged by this government to stabilize their positions financially and stabilize their position in terms of ability to maintain current employment and to expand that employment, if possible, should there be a major correction in the economic picture around it.

Mr. Minister, with this bill, the way it is written now, and with these facts that we are presenting to you now, there is no way that the mining industry and the related industries, whatever sector they are in, can plan on a long-term basis not only for expansion, but to make their operations more efficient. Certainly in the mining industry this should be one of our prime objectives, and it should be one of the government's prime objectives: to try to achieve the ultimate in the conservation of our resources, so that in extracting them we are utilizing every possible bit.

This was the policy in the forest industry before and it is a policy that the current government is carrying on, and they should be commended for this. It is the policy, Mr. Minister, that you should be following in the resource industry. But as this bill,

[ Page 3938 ]

which we wish you to hold over and examine, appears to be written it is not going to leave room for this type of very conservative approach to mining that we need.

Mr. Whitehead goes on to say:

"We find that investors are discouraged by poor investment results, by an oppressive Watergate psychology, by a ridiculously counter-productive capital gains tax" — that is an interesting point — "by high interest rates and by high inflation. Thus at a time when the need for new capital is at an all-time peak the individual willingness to invest has reached an all-time low."

Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be prepared to answer in this motion: what is the picture in British Columbia? I pointed out to the Minister, yesterday, that the latest report from United States shows, in the first quarter of 1973, that the cross-section of industries in British Columbia had only 17 cents in cash for each dollar. And that was down 3 cents from 1972, the last quarter.

When you take these figures and you listen to knowledgeable international people who are aware of international financing, are aware of international trade, I find it impossible to understand why the Minister wants to press forward with this bill in such a rush.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, on the order paper — Mr. Speaker, what's on the order paper? This bill is going to affect the fundamental direction of resource extraction and resource use in the Province of British Columbia., We're talking about the need and the desire to develop industries for secondary processing of our resources in British Columbia.

How can you ask producers and workers to gamble their future on a bill like this when what you need from them is a continued and guaranteed source of supply if we're to have a secondary processing industry? How can any company either directly involved in mining, or related to mining, plan their long-term financing under the best of circumstances without taking into consideration the current circumstances with a bill that leaves a great deal of doubt as to what in fact the taxation picture's going to be?

They don't know when they go out to prospect, if they find a resource and wish to develop it, what the attitude of the government is going to be — whether the government is going to take it over, pay for it, whether this bill is going to, in effect, be a double royalty before any cost of production is really considered. The Minister is putting them in an impossible position.

Mr. Speaker, to a large degree the buoyancy of the economy in any country or province, and in this case British Columbia, depends a lot on what the consumer has in his pocket to spend, because that's the mid-section that keeps the money flowing. That's the individual…the worker is the individual who circulates the money, and the Minister is looking at what he calls windfall profits to companies, which in fact are reflecting themselves in higher costs to the consumer.

We find another article in the paper today, in the Sun, Tuesday, June 11, 1974, and its headline, which is a result of a release from the federal government: "Continued Consumer Spending Aids Canadian Economic Growth in 1974." Now, if the effect of this bill, which we'd like to be examined More thoroughly, is a slowdown in prospecting, then there's going to be a slowdown in the allied industries. There's going to be a slowdown in the need for heavy-duty mechanics, for truck drivers, for every aspect of secondary industries related to mining, and to service industries related to mining. This is going to mean the reflection of the take-home pay and the job opportunities for many workers in British Columbia.

If the federal government is predicting that a good deal of the economic growth in 1974 must be based on consumer spending, then certainly this bill is in direct contrast to what the federal government, in their wisdom and economic advice, are telling the people of British Columbia.

One would hate to think that the Minister would wish to slow the economy in this manner, and I'm sure he doesn't. But it's important, Mr. Speaker, that he recognize that these are facts which he obviously has not considered and which will play a part in the overall economy of British Columbia.

They are facts that could be More thoroughly brought to his attention by people more competent than myself in the field of economics, in the field of retailing and the field of governmental responsibility in the economic world. And he would have the time and the opportunity to listen to what they say.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the Minister last night … and I would like to just refer to it for a moment again because it's apropos and he may have forgotten it. In fact he may not be hearing, he's so busy talking to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister listening? — because the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.Cocke) says the Minister of Mines has heard it all before. What we want to know Mr. Speaker, is: why isn't he listening? Why isn't he listening to not only the Members of this Legislature but to the people of this province whose

[ Page 3939 ]

future he's toying with, to economists. to federal economists, to international monetary experts? Why isn't the Minister listening?

The Minister of Health has already proved tonight that there are times when he has difficulty finding out which end is up. Surely we could hardly consider him a credible authority on this bill and its effect on the mining industry, the economy of British Columbia and the jobs of people. We must be much more inclined and right, I'm sure, to listen to people who have shown a good deal more credibility than the Minister of Health showed tonight, and more than what the Minister of Mines is showing in refusing to listen to rational and realistic criticism and concern about this bill.

I want to point out to the Minister that if the secondary thought of this bill is to involve the government in sectors of the mining industry, then he cannot then turn a blind eye to the national economic problems because the government is not in the position where it has inexhaustible sources of funds in its general revenue. Those funds come from the backs of people in British Columbia, and those funds, Mr. Minister, are not to be spent in dabbling in philosophical mining ventures. Those funds are to provide services for people, and responsible government.

Mr. Minister, if you involve yourself in the mining industry, you will have to go to the capital markets of the world. In so doing, you will face the same problems that I'm outlining tonight — high interest rates, shortage of long-term capital. You'll find yourself and the Province of British Columbia at the mercy of the moneylenders of the world, and that's not where the people of British Columbia want to be. Failing that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have to tax more heavily the working people of this province.

But if he would show a sense of responsibility, which I'm sure he has, and a concern for this province, then he would examine this bill over the next six months and adjust it as is necessary in relation to what is happening elsewhere. British Columbia is not an island unto itself; British Columbia is not in a position anymore, to the degree that it was, that it's going to be able to weather indefinitely a major economic downturn. The Minister should be very much aware of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an error that was made in the House last night, as reported in the paper. It relates to the fact of another area of concern by the people of British Columbia and by the opposition in relation to this bill which we wish to have hoisted and examined for six months, and where the comments made by the Premier of this province in this House on Friday where he not only toyed with facts and figures, where he, in fact, was wrong.

In that debate in pointing out areas where the Premier was wrong, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Blues, if I may with your permission, page 890-1 when the Hon. Member for North Okanagan is speaking. And the Member said:

… Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the Minister of Finance said that Kaiser Resources made $13 million in 1973 against $3.4 million in 1972 — an increase of 282 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the record reveals that Kaiser reported losses in 1972.

And in The Vancouver Sun today, under the heading of the Sun Victoria Bureau there is a misstatement and a mistake in the reporting which I believe should be corrected and in the record.

The report goes on to say:

"She claimed Barrett said that Kaiser Resources made a profit of $13 million in 1973, when the record reveals that Kaiser recorded a loss in 1973."

I would hope that reporter is in the gallery; that's not what I said and I think it's a very misleading statement in the newspaper. I would hope it would be corrected. And I'm sure the Speaker would be willing to allow the reporter to examine the Blues.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I hold no animosity. It was a human frailty and I certainly understand. But I think in a debate as serious as this, perhaps it could be corrected.

I also would mention for the House's information that, in trying to point out to the Minister of Mines the danger in involving taxpayers' money in high-risk capital, I referred to the trading of Kaiser shares on the market yesterday at $2.25. In fact, that trading was at $4.50.

But the Minister should know that when Kaiser resources as an investment went into the stock market, they opened to public purchase at $12.50 a share. They reached a high, Mr. Minister, of $22 a share, which meant that people bought shares at that price — people in British Columbia because 25 per cent of Kaiser is owned by Canadians and many of those are in British Columbia. It reached a low, Mr. Minister, of $1.85, and that was not too long ago. It is trading now at $4.50 plus warrant.

The purpose of bringing this point to the Minister's attention is to point out to him as graphically as one can that mining ventures in themselves are high risks. Claim-staking by the individual prospector is a long-term, high-risk situation. Being in an allied business that is largely dependent on the mining industry is also a risk situation. The people of British Columbia do not feel that their tax moneys should be involved in this type of high-risk operation.

I cite that example to point out to the Minister that, whatever position you take in the mining

[ Page 3940 ]

industry — which I'm sure you would not take if you delayed this bill for six months and analyzed the full position — it is a risky one. This is just one example of what can happen to shares. It's no joy to any British Columbian to feel that they own a mine when, in fact, the returns from that mine really aren't there and that they can garner fair returns from proper and fair taxation.

There was one other comment the Premier made which was wrong. He stated that Placer Development Ltd. made $71 million in 1973. That was up 332 per cent from $16.6 million in 1972. The fact of the case is that Placer's income was given the boost from shares from Gibraltar. When he quotes the figures in 197 2, what the Premier hasn't told was that Gibraltar was only in operation for nine months and, of that, five months were at full capacity. They completed their first full year of operation in 1973 and they did then indeed reap benefits from the high return on copper and copper prices.

Where the Premier was wrong was that those profits were not all from British Columbia. They were from one of their subsidiary companies, Maracopper, in the Philippines. The profits also reflected the sale of property.

The fact is that the Premier has stood in this House and made not one human error, which we could all understand in one debate, but many, three of which I have listed here. This shows beyond a doubt that either the Premier simply doesn't know what he's talking about and simply has no understanding of the economic fabric of British Columbia or the problems and the risks and the costs in mining and the jobs and the incomes that are involved in related industries to mining, or he simply doesn't care and has other plans in mind for the resource industries of this province.

Either alternative is hardly one upon which a responsible Minister of Mines would introduce a bill such as Bill 31. This is another reason why we ask that it be withdrawn for six months and examined in its full light.

We hear talk about the high returns to the mining industry. I mentioned before and I mention again that I don't stand here in a position of defending any mining company or the major mining industry. I stand in defence of fair taxation; I stand in defence of the need for stable, basic industries in this province; I stand in defence of the right of allied industries -small, large, medium — to be able to plan long-term financing and to have a position in our economy.

I stand here for the right of people in British Columbia to look to their government to lead to stability in all industries at all times, particularly this industry and particularly in light of the current world economic jitters. .

In speaking of the high profits which the Premier and Minister of Finance suggests all companies, make, I would quote that Placer's return on their investment was 15.9 per cent over a 10-year period.

You may recall that last year this government solicited the services of one, Eric Kierans, a known nationalist and a man who is known to feel that limited returns are very important. Mr. Eric Kierans, the giant of the economic world that the socialists admire so much, says a 15 per cent return in the mining industry is very reasonable.

If 0.9 per cent return above 15 per cent is too much, then I would ask the Minister what he does indeed consider a fair return to any company that is in the mining industry or in the allied or service industries dependent on mining.

Mr. Speaker, it might interest you to know that the mining industry's general return in investment from 1967 to 1973 was 11.3 per cent.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development is quite right; it's not bad. Your own leader at the national level, David Lewis, has said as late as the other day in his Maritimes tour in this federal election that 11 per cent return for extractive industries is quite acceptable. Yes, Mr. Member, he did say that — and isn't it extraordinary.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I assume he has the same policies when he is speaking in the Maritimes as he has when he is speaking in British Columbia or the Prairies. Or is this very characteristic of the NDP? Maybe it is, Mr. Speaker. They have one policy for one group of people and another policy for another group of people. They have policy for one part of Canada and another policy for another part of Canada. It's "shaft-them-and-shift-them" NDP.

That's exactly what this bill is all about. That's exactly why we ask this Minister to be responsible and reasonable and to withdraw this bill and examine it more fully.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Be realistic.

MRS. JORDAN: Unrealistic? Well, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development — who is in his wrong seat — what do you call realistic? What do you want to know about the job-creating ability of mining and allied industries in this province that would make them more acceptable to you? We shouldn't be telling you how you should develop a secondary-processing and a resource-processing industry in British Columbia; you should be telling us, not junketing all over the world on economic diplomacy.

This is one of the most severe criticisms against

[ Page 3941 ]

this government. It's yap, yap, yap; legislate, legislate, legislate; control, control, control; but no production, no action, no stability.

I'm being realistic, Mr. Member. I don't know what you read before you go to bed at night but I know what I read. In these days I read what is happening in the rest of the world. I have a firm belief that world markets are very important to British Columbia, that world markets are going to continue to provide jobs in British Columbia, that world markets are going to continue to provide the revenues for pollution control in British Columbia and the world markets and the return from those markets are going to continue to provide better health care — not, Mr. Minister, to allow you to dabble in philosophic, economic diplomacy.

It's time the Minister of Industrial Development, instead of asking silly questions, got up and gave us in this House some concrete examples of what he is doing and what jobs he has helped create in British Columbia. What miners and prospectors has he encouraged to go out? What little businesses, grocery stores and shoe shops has he encouraged to develop in British Columbia? The story out there is that this government is discouraging them all. The capital is leaving British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The sort of nonsense we hear in this House from this Minister tonight is one of the reasons that British Columbia, which once had a very enviable reputation as a good place to live, a good place to earn a fair income and a good place to receive a fair profit for fair effort is no longer that area.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: When your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) stands up and tells us that he's rotating 3,000 able-bodied teenagers….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with the amendment to Bill 31.

MRS. JORDAN: Right on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just speak to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: And this is why we should withhold Bill 31. Those 3,000 able-bodied young people who are living on welfare in British Columbia per month, living off the backs of the working people of this province, should be able to look forward to an exciting, working future in many of the service industries, if not the mining industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, that's what the people are talking about — not in here and not in the gallery. But you go to the rest of this province and these are their concerns. I urge you once again to listen to the debate, to the arguments put forth by all Members of the opposition in this House, and try and understand and show good judgment and show concern for the future of our province.

MR. GARDOM: I have a few short comments to the amendment.

It seems to me that the sensitivity and the sensibility of this amendment is an attempt to prevent an abuse of power and certainly prevent serious economic hazard not just to one of our primary product industries — and we've got to remember that we are a primary products province — but to the whole of B.C. and the whole of its economy. The amendment is nothing more than a genuine attempt to provide a pause and provide a mechanism, hopefully for the introduction of reason and study and more intensive and rational thought, to come up with a solution — a solution that might provide greater equity and do a better job and be more fair to all of the people of B.C., the miners and the taxpayers and all of our citizens.

I say this is a golden opportunity in the time of our province for such a hoist. There has never been really a time quite like this before. We are living in a most amazing period of fluctuations of costs, of prices, of incomes, and the supply of commodities than we have ever experienced in B.C. It's a phenomenon. I'm sure some people say it's a provincial phenomenon, others that it's a national phenomenon, even others that it's an international phenomenon, or any combination of two or all of the three.

But we have to take one thing as fact, be it a phenomenon or not: howsoever it is caused, it has produced and it has resulted in an area, I'd say, of complete and day-to-day and moment-to-moment uncertainty — most significantly in the mining industry which is so heavily dependent upon export for its existence. The fact that it is functioning and flourishing and, indeed, existing in this province is obviously for the good of our prospectors and our miners and our transporters, and refiners and suppliers. It's good for all of its work force and all of the work force of the province and for all of our residents and taxpayers and tax recipients.

There is a lot of talk by the opposition benches, and particularly by the Hon. Minister, about whether or not, if it doesn't come out of the ground, it can stay in the ground. Well, minerals only come out of the ground, Mr. Minister, if it is economic to get them out. But it doesn't provide jobs, it doesn't provide income, it doesn't provide tax revenues or food on the table for anyone if it doesn't come out of the

[ Page 3942 ]

ground. It's worth nothing under there, as the Hon. Member on my right says.

The minerals will never come out of the ground unless it is economic to bring them out, apart from the loss of jobs and the loss of income and the loss of tax revenues and food on the table, what also goes will be a loss in market, a loss in know-how, the expertise, the talents, the technological skills not only of the mining industry but also of any spinoff products or spinoff industries and businesses and services.

So I say again that the reasons for a hoist are golden. We have this extremely uncertain, problemed, provincial, national and international economic situation. Let's see what the next six months can do instead of trying to lock this industry in.

Secondly, we have the benefit, Mr. Minister — and this is a point I would indeed like to stress — we have the benefit of learning and of gaining expertise without harm and even, perhaps, irretrievable harm, from the results of the Ontario experience and the input which hopefully will go into the Manitoba study. All of that is without effort and all of it is without cost to the Province of British Columbia. We can reap rewards, Mr. Speaker, and certainly gain from the experience and research from the Ontario decision and from the Manitoba inquiry.

We should also be able to have some experience and have some benefit from the manner in which their own plans may reflect and live with — if they can — these current provincial, country and worldwide conditions.

The Minister would also be able, Mr. Speaker, with a six-month hoist, to consider the overall economic consequences of the Ontario excess profits tax, not just the economic consequences, not just to the mining industry, but in its total sense, and to all of the spinoffs of the mining industry and all of the taxation revenues in every form from that industry and all of its spinoffs.

We could consider the thing from the overall socio-economic consequences to those who are initially, directly and specifically affected and also to those who are laterally, indirectly and generally affected. Indeed, the same consideration should be given to similar studies which should be undertaken in the Province of B.C.

The Hon. Minister was involved in discussion with his colleague. The point I was making, Mr. Minister, was that there is so much to be gained in the Province of B.C. from the Ontario experience and also from the results of the study of the Manitoba experiment.

We have no certainty that the Manitoba legislation will come into effect. They are prepared to sit back and see what the thing will do. We have the benefit here in this province, without cost to us and without harm to us, to sit back and see how successfully the Ontario legislation works, and from its overall impact into the whole of the community. You also have the opportunity to gainsay first-class information from the results of the inquiries that are obviously going to be made in Manitoba.

More than that, it will give the B.C. residents breathing ground to properly consider all of those points in these other areas.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): We want to lead, not to follow.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, you say you want to lead, Mr. Minister, but you're leading with your chin. You've no idea how long the fight is going to be or how many rounds you are going to be in or how tough your opponent is. You even have no knowledge that you're going to be facing the same kind of an opponent. That's the whole point. You want to lead but you're just leading with your chin. I suppose You're going to be waiting to be flattened come the next election.

You can bring this legislation in. I think it's the faintest of hope of the mining industry that they think you're going to hoist this bill. Some of them still think that. I'm practical enough to see that you're not going to do any hoisting. It doesn't matter how much we may advocate that you do that. I think that's regrettable. Once the socialistic mind, diminutive as it may be, is made up, I can tell you that it plods on and it's not likely to be too flexible. So the likelihood of any amendment and the likelihood of any hoist of this legislation, of Bill 31 in B.C. Just ain't going to happen. I say that to the mining industry tonight.

I certainly think you should give an opportunity not only to the industry who are most specifically interested and primarily interested but you should give an opportunity to all of the citizens of this province to see just what happens in the Province of Ontario and what kind of expertise is fed into the Province of Manitoba. Follow the Manitoba approach yourself here. That would be the thing to do but you have not done this, Mr. Minister.

This is a continuous failing of your government and of all its portfolios. You have not given the people of British Columbia any projections or in-depth information of the impact or of the consequences of what I would say would be the potentially crippling nature of this kind of legislation. You have not done that. You should be able to say to the people of British Columbia today that you support your bill and that these are the projections as to how this thing will work; these are the statistics you have received; this will be the total impact on the whole of the community, taking into account the loss in tax revenues from those companies, a large number of which will, in great likelihood, have to go under. You should be furnishing that information if you have the

[ Page 3943 ]

convictions of your statute, and I'm not suggesting you don't have.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You say to come up to your office and you'll show me. I think you should show it to all of the people of this province. I'm delighted, Mr. Minister, to come and see you at your office — you're a very pleasant individual. But I think that information and those projections should be furnished to everyone.

Apart from the very great political and philosophical differences — which I would say today in the Province of B.C. stands at about 75 to 25 against the swing-shift socialists over there — there are no end of problems of economic good will and the prosperity of all of our citizens, be they socialistic or non-socialistic, which this legislation will affect.

You have not told them how it will affect them, Mr. Minister. That's why I reiterate and agree with the individual who moved this amendment that for the whole of the province — for everybody in the province, be they socialist, non-socialist Or whatever they may be, all of our taxpayers and all of our citizens — a six-month hoist is practical, reasonable and most needful. I would say it is extremely genuine in the interests of all concerned. That's why you should do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before I recognize the Member for Boundary- Similkameen, the Member did speak before but was unable to complete his remarks because of illness, I would ask the House to give leave to him to…. Is it agreed?

Leave granted.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): When I so rudely interrupted myself the other day with a little spree of coughing…. I hope that won't occur tonight.

To continue with what I had to say the other day regarding the amendment to the motion to hoist this bill for six months — Mr. Speaker, you know, I don't personally think that the Minister could hoist this bill for six months because I don't think he really has control of the bill; I think his cabinet colleagues have control of the bill. I say that because the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) made it abundantly clear the other day, when he was speaking to a group at the Empress Hotel, that Bill 31 would not be withdrawn. I'm sure he had in mind too that it would not be amended, although the Minister did say that an amendment was going to be brought in.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well then, that's really not much help, is it? An amendment is not going to change it.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Undoubtedly, no one can prove to you, Mr. Minister, that you could be wrong, because your cabinet colleagues would overrule you anyway. I just feel sorry for you that you don't have complete control of your legislation.

I'm not going to reiterate the points that I made the other day but I am going to say, Mr. Minister, that you were invited to explain your bill to the public, but you decided not to do that, Even though you did make press release' about the bill, you could very easily have met the public had you the courage to do so. The fact that you didn't meet the public left a great deal of doubt in their minds as to the sincerity of the legislation, and because of its vagueness, the industry has become very sensitive.

Many of the statements you have made leave a great deal of doubt in my mind as to whether or not you have really given it the necessary study. This is why we are recommending that you give this a six-month hoist — the fact of the vagueness which I mentioned the other day, the discretionary powers which are not definitively spelled out, and the very fact that if I wanted today to go to the Securities Commission with a prospectus I couldn't honestly give a factual prospectus because of the vagueness of the terminology in your bill. This doesn't help the industry one little bit as far as doing any exploration or devising any programmes with which they could develop already ascertained potential mineral claims that will have to have a great deal of work done on them before they will ever be in a position to have a feasibility study set out.

You mentioned in one of your statements that there was wholesale waste previously in the mining industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never said "wholesale waste" at any time.

MR. RICHTER: I think you have to go back in Hansard to your opening statement on the wholesale waste of mineral resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never said "wholesale waste" at any time.

MR. RICHTER: We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you didn't say it because a person with your knowledge of the mining industry…. You were virtually raised in the industry. I don't know that it has done that much good for you. You were raised in the industry but you went wrong, the same as I did, by going into political life. I don't think

[ Page 3944 ]

that's done you any good either. I would suggest that you should maybe get out of that at the earliest possible date.

It was quite amazing to me that on June 1 you were advertising, through your Deputy Minister as chairman of a task force, to study the whole ambit of copper processing and smelting and so on. Of course, that is all incorporated in your bill. You've already set out facts and figures, as you ascertain them, in your bill — I presume that you hope they are right. Now you're going to have a task force make a study of it. Manitoba is making a study. Ontario has an Act.

There is no particular harm in hoisting this bill for six months. As I said previously, I know you can't do it because your cabinet Ministers won't let you.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: That doesn't concur with what the Premier said. The Premier said it was too low and you wouldn't let him make it any higher. Let's get this straight, one way or the other. Mr. Minister, you know you never had any dialogue with the industry. You know that for sure. When we had the promulgation of the reclamation legislation there were committees set up both from your own department — or at that time it was my department — and the industry. And good legislation was promulgated on the basis of those studies.

The legislation and regulations that have come pursuant to those studies is looked up to with high regard in many, many parts of the world. In fact, the States of Tennessee and Kentucky would have loved to have had that kind of legislation instead of the mess they have now. We are getting very commendable reports on the reclamation projects that are taking place.

Also, Mr. Minister, you should study the experience of the States of Michigan and Minnesota in relation to the same proposals that you have here in this legislation which they failed on. They've chased the mining industry completely out of their states.

In developing any mine after discovery it takes a certain amount of lead time. This lead time runs anywhere from five to eight years. You know yourself, Mr. Minister, that you have mines in this province presently in operation that haven't sufficient ore bodies to go beyond 1975. These mines support large work forces.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: We have a number of mines. You know them as well as I do without me naming them all. There are some in the northern part of the province, there are others in the Nicola Valley and in the Ashcroft area. There are any number of them.

You've got one in the Okanagan.

The ore bodies are progressively being depleted to the point where, if they don't get busy with further exploration and development…. And they have been up until the time this Act was brought into this House; they were doing these kinds of exploration and development work. Since the Act has come in, they haven't continued — only in a very minor way.

We have to have new ore bodies coming on to give these people additional work and to create the economy that is needed in this province. You know yourself that the mining industry is the No. 2 industry in this province. You have every opportunity of making it much greater by bringing in legislation that is not punitive and by giving the mining companies a chance to at least make a profit. You should take your cut on net profits rather than on the gross and you'll certainly have a very happy situation to deal with.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Explain how this is punitive legislation.

MR. RICHTER: I don't know what you want me to explain, Mr. Minister. It's so obviously clear that a primary grade student would be able to understand it. You must understand it yourself.

For instance, you're taking it completely off the top before expenses or before taxes. At least give them a chance to deduct their taxes, their exploration costs and their other expenses, salaries, et cetera, before you hit them below the belt.

The Mining Tax Act is a prime example. If you studied that, you'll find they can make $10,000 profit before they pay any tax. Certainly $ 10,000 is a very, very minimal amount as far as a profit is concerned because these mines cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Take Lornex and many of the other mines which have gone over $100 million to put into exploration or into development and into production.

The whole thrust of this bill is this magic word "royalty." You could have very simply revised the Mining Tax Act. You could also have made a very close study. It's still not too late, Mr. Minister, to do that. Just hoist the bill for six months or to the next session and then you can bring in a completely new Act that would encourage the mining industry in this province and keep an industry and jobs for those who are working in this particular field.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I feel a breeze from somewhere up in the Nicola right now. It's very easy to bring in legislation that will encourage the mining industry in this province to the degree that we would find it very closely

[ Page 3945 ]

crowding the forest industry as far as revenue income is concerned.

Mr. Minister, while we have only been discussing the amendment now, certainly I will have more to say when we get to the main motion at that time.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 33

MR. SPEAKER: May I say that there is now debate on the main motion.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Are you proposing to close the debate now on the main motion?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made the motion. I try my best to see that each party gets some. representation during the day. The last one to speak on this main motion was the Leader of the Opposition. I am now calling upon the Member from the Liberal group who wishes to speak.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was a near thing when the Minister stood up there. I am glad he sat down and admitted that there is to be at least some debate on the main motion.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We have hardly started, Mr. Minister.

You know, so far there has been a little fun had on this debate, Mr. Speaker, but that is all it has been.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You will have your chance later, Mr. Member.

So far it has just been a little fun by the Premier the other day when he stood up here and said the things he had to say, which were amusing, agreed, Mr. Speaker, but it was irresponsible too. It was a comedy and a tragedy at the same time.

The Hon. Members over there say "Shame," Mr. Speaker, but a Premier you don't expect particularly to be able to use numbers, yet when you think of how the Minister of Finance was misusing numbers in this House, and giving completely the wrong numbers, it seemed to me that was very wrong.

He talked about several companies and I'm not going to particularly defend the great profits of the mining companies in 1973. I say the people of British Columbia ought to have more return out of the profits of the mining companies in an unusual year like 1973. But at the same time I say it is not competent of the Minister of Finance of this province to use absolutely the wrong figures as to the profits of those companies, because thereby in his high office he conveys the wrong impression to the public. And on legislation of this importance it is essential that the public should understand it clearly.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: And he should understand it clearly, as says the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

Perhaps it's too much to expect, but the Premier and Minister of Finance should understand it clearly, and he should understand when he talks about a particular company like Bralorne Resources, and talks about the enormous profits they made out of mining in British Columbia in 1973, that they didn't make a penny from mining in British Columbia in 1973.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: And the Premier thought they did.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: They wrote off about $3 million as their share for Bradina Resources.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They did that, Mr. Minister of

[ Page 3946 ]

Highways.

And they made some money in Alberta, but they didn't make any money in British Columbia, and the Premier said they did and I was surprised at that. Then he said he thought that Kaiser Resources had gone from a profit of $4 million in 1972 up to $13 million in 1973, when in fact Kaiser Resources went from a loss of $13 million in 1972 to a profit of $4 million in 1973. The numbers were just reversed.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no. Those are their numbers that I've just given, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The numbers the Premier gave were the reverse numbers. That's why I was saying there must be some confusion over there. Maybe the whole of Bill 31 is backwards. Maybe they really don't mean what that bill says. I think what we have to do is try and go through the bill very carefully just to see if it really does mean what the government says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. GIBSON: You look at the profits of Placer Development which the Premier cited, and one of the Ministers — I forget which one — said it would bring tears to glass eyes. Now, I'm not going to get any tears to my eyes about the profits of Placer Development. But the fact of the matter is that the Premier claimed they had $70-some million of profits and implied it was all out of British Columbia, when around $30 million was out of the Philippines, when around $12 million was out of New Guinea — and that, to me, is misleading. I don't say it is intentionally misleading. That's why I'm afraid; I'm afraid that he might really not know those figures.

I'm afraid that the whole basis of this legislation is not well founded. He talked about the profits of Cominco. Once again, nobody is going to weep for Cominco and the poor little CPR, as the Premier says, that company that the Minister of Mines used to work for. But the Premier might at least have the knowledge in citing their profits that a large part of them come from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories — about which I'll have more to say later — that a large part comes from potash in Saskatchewan, and another large part comes from a fertilizer operation in Alberta, of which another $129 million investment in Alberta fertilizer was just announced. Another large part is from the Black Angel mine in Greenland.

In sum, the Premier was not properly representing to this House and to the people of British Columbia exactly what the profits of these companies might be.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Neither the Premier nor the Minister have taken any account of the developments in the world around them on this business of royalties.

Let me read a little report from the Canadian Press:

"The Manitoba government has decided not to proceed this year with a bill to establish a new system for taxing mining companies, Mines Minister Sidney Green announced Wednesday." And then later on he said:

"I am however willing and anxious to ensure that the tax is well understood and that opportunity is given to deal with any misunderstanding or problem which may arise relating to its implementation. In this particular case the public has nothing to lose and everything to gain by some delay in the passage of this bill."

That's pretty clear. Other jurisdictions have been wise enough to learn that there are very serious problems in the passage of this kind of legislation.

I gather, Mr. Speaker, that it would be agreeable to the government House Leader if I moved to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.