[ Page 3987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3987

Oral questions

Study of plus-minus method of sewage control. Mr. McClelland — 3987

Completion date on Purcell report. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3988

Cabinet appointment rumour. Mr. Wallace — 3988

Cost-sharing formula for historic site land. Mrs. Jordan — 3988

Deferred tax interest rate. Mr. Gardom — 3989

Shortage of ICBC adjusters. Mr. Fraser — 3989

Saanich housing project. Mr. Curtis — 3989

Announcement on Jericho Hill School. Mr. McClelland — 3990

Announcements about Tilbury Island development. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 3990

Procedure in naming new ferries. Mr. Wallace — 3990

Cost of physical exams for elderly drivers. Mrs. Jordan — 3991

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50).

Committee stage — 3991

On section 4.

Mr. Chabot — 3991

Mr. Cummings — 3991

On section 29.

Mr. Chabot — 3992

On section 48.

Mr. Gardom — 3992

Report and third reading — 3993

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association Incorporation Act (Bill 51).

Committee, report and third reading — 3993

Assessment Act (Bill 151 ). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3993

Amendment to section 24.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3993

Mr. Curtis — 3993

Amendment to section 28.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to section 29.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to section 35.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

On section 37.

Mr. Curtis 3994

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Amendment to section 41.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

On section 41 as amended.

Mr. McClelland — 3994

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3994

Mr. Curtis — 3994

Amendment to section 43.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3995

Amendment to section 45.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3995

Amendment to section 60.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3996

Amendment to section 66.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3996

Report stage — 3996

Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 154). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 3996

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3996

Report and third reading — 3997

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85). Committee stage.

Amendments to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3997

Mr. Fraser — 3997

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3997

Mr. Curtis — 3997

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3998

Mr. Gardom — 3998

Amendments to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3999

Mr. McClelland — 3999

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3999

Amendments to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3999

Mr. McClelland — 3999

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4000

Amendments to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4000

Mr. Wallace — 4000

Mrs. Jordan — 4002

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4004

Mr. McClelland — 4004

Mr. Gardom — 4005

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4006

Mr. Phillips — 4006

Hon. Mr. Lea — 4008

Mr. Curtis — 4009

Mr. Wallace — 4010

Division on the amendment — 4011

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to section 7.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4011

Amendments to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4012

Mr. Gardom — 4012

On section 9 as amended.

Mr. McClelland — 4013

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4013

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4013

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

Division on third reading — 4014

Interpretation Act (Bill 153). Committee stage.

On section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4014

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4014

On section 4 1.

Mr. Chabot — 4014

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4015

Report and third reading — 4015

Strata Titles Act (Bill 141). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendments to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

On section 10.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4015

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4015

Amendments to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to section 13.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendment to section 17.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to section 22.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to section 24.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4016

Amendments to section 26.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendments to section 39.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to section 50.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to section 51.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

Amendment to section 52.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

On section 54.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4017

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4017

On section 60.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4018

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Amendment to section 66.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Amendment to first schedule.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4018

Report stage — 4018

Forest Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 117). Committee stage.

On section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 4018

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4018

Mr. Smith— 4019

Division on section 9.

On section 15.

Mr. Smith— 4020

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4020

On section 23.

Mr. Smith — 4020

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

On section 25.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

On section 27.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

On section 32.

Mr. Smith — 4021

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4021

On section 35.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4022

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4022

On section 41.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4022

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4023

Report and third reading — 4023

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31 ). Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 4023

Mr. Smith — 4037

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4040

Division on second reading — 4042

Motions

Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

On motion 32.

Mr. Chabot — 4043

Presenting petitions

Mrs.Webster — 4048

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

The House met at 11:30 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a very special guest today, accompanied by a friend of his. He is Father Toulouse, who said the prayer today. Father Toulouse was one of my professors at Seattle University. If you have any criticisms at all of me, I want you to bring it to his attention today. Father Toulouse is up from Seattle with Father O'Brien. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, this morning I have great pleasure to first welcome a group of students from the Hope C.E. Barry School — a group of Grade 7 students that will be visiting with us a little later.

I am sorry that the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) is again not in his place, because I have a further pleasure and that is….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The controversy starts later. Would the Hon. Minister reserve any of his political statements to another time?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome a group of 50 students from the City of Kelowna in the South Okanagan riding, and their teacher, Mr. Stockley. One of the students, Andy Barker, last night caught a 15-pound salmon, and young Tommy Rowles is down with them, too. I ask you to welcome them.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, and for the records, I was subjected this morning to a wonderful surprise breakfast in honour of my 25th anniversary as a Member of this Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Wait till you get the bill. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know what it really indicates, but it was a great pleasure to me and a great surprise. It was a very sentimental moment when I came into the parliamentary restaurant and found everybody there to give me that surprise.

In the 25 years that I've been here I've seen a great many changes, especially in the responsibilities of the Members of the Legislature and the problems of government. Yet looking back over the 25 years it seems only yesterday when I gave my maiden speech from that side of the House.

I was presented with something that I'm sure that I will cherish for the rest of my life, and I am passing it around for everyone to see during the sitting.

I want to thank you all once again.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place uncovered, according to standing orders, and draw to your attention this hat that was presented to me last night at a banquet of the original ferry employees who have been working for the B.C. Ferries since they started in 1960. They dubbed me Admiral of the Fleet. I told them it was okay for the Premier to give me the responsibility for the ferries, it was okay for this House to pass the money, but when they make me admiral that's a real honour.

I assured them on behalf of this House that it was the objective of all of us in this House to make this proud fleet an even better fleet in the future. So I am now Admiral of the Fleet officially by the people who operate the ferries.

I want to assure the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that this new honour is not a prelude to moving to B.C. House in London. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

LANDLORD AND TENANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 155 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

STUDY OF PLUS-MINUS
METHOD OF SEWAGE CONTROL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the Minister indicate whether the Pollution Control Board has now initiated a study of the plus-minus method of sewage control that's in operation in Metchosin?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I am not aware of that study. There has been continuing work with the plus-minus

[ Page 3988 ]

man, Mr. Jones, and so on. I haven't dealt with the question since it came up in the House with respect to the inaccurate earlier speech from the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: would the Minister tell us whether a Dr. Ellis, who was formerly with Environment Canada, is now with B.C. Hydro investigating the alternate uses of Hat Creek coal deposits? If so, has he made any preliminary reports?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Ellis is heading a task force within B.C. Hydro which is looking at all of the earlier assumptions of the former energy commission and the tenure plans of B.C. Hydro. As part of that process they are, of course, looking at Hat Creek coal and I'm sure will have some recommendations in the near future regarding….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that that was more like a caboose on a different track than a supplementary.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it isn't, Mr. Speaker — it's on exactly the same subject. And I have another supplementary on the very same subject. I'd like to ask the Minister: since the Pollution Control Board is apparently going to issue a permit to Richmond Meat Packing to install a plus-minus system of sewage control for which 240 tons of coal will have to be imported from Alberta, is the government giving any consideration to making Hat Creek coal available for this kind of system?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, that would be a matter for the board of directors of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Speaker, the coal is owned by B.C. Hydro.

COMPLETION DATE
ON PURCELL REPORT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Same Minister, Mr. Speaker: may I ask him whether the report on the Purcell region of the Kootenays is being completed and whether or not this report will be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister a supplementary: what date may we expect this report to be made public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: A date hasn't been set, Mr. Speaker.

RUMOUR OF POSSIBLE
CABINET APPOINTMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier what action he is taking to track down the cabinet leak regarding the appointment of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) to the cabinet?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I've been apprised of this rumour that's been circulating, and it's nothing more than a rumour. But if you wish me to comment on rumours…. I want to know what's going on with that group over there, and the meetings that you are holding. Will you give us a public statement on that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm concerned that you are losing identity as separate political groups. I'd like to hear some answers on these rumours over there.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the Premier stating that the cabinet leak is false?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not stating anything on rumours. I'm asking you if you are prepared to comment upon rumours about yourself, that's all. I mean if we want to exchange rumours, I suggest a little recess and we iron out the problems you're having.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one who is in trouble. (Laughter.)

COST-SHARING FORMULA
FOR HISTORIC SITE LAND

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Speaking of trouble, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Finance. The heritage advisory boards in British Columbia are in extreme trouble and in danger of being disbanded because the government has made no provision for compensation to those who own the land that is declared a heritage site. In fact, the changes that were brought in this year only led to an almost confiscation of this property. I'd like to know if the Minister of Finance is going to work or is working on a formula to cost-sharing so that people who own

[ Page 3989 ]

land that is declared of historical value will receive fair compensation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, I wish to inform you that I intend to take that question as notice.

MRS. JORDAN: Do we get more rumours?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you take it as notice and then act on it?

DEFERRED TAX INTEREST RATE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance. Under his name, a large advertisement has appeared in all the papers in the province yesterday concerning property tax benefits. It states: "The interest rate is a modest 8 per cent per year." That is not true, Mr. Premier.

I would draw to your attention the provisions of Bill 16, section 9: "…interest thereon compounded annually at 8 per cent per annum." And over the 10-year period, Mr. Premier, the interest increases from 8 per cent to 16 per cent on simple interest, and that's not a modest 8 per cent per year but exactly double that.

I'd ask the Hon. Premier if he is prepared to forthwith correct this misleading advertising and furnish examples in his advertisements of the interest charges as they would be called for under the Mortgage Brokers Act of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech in the form of a question from the Member, and I want to point out that the 8 per cent compounded is normal. And we wouldn't have to be that high if the federal government would change the national Bank Act to stop the banks from the making such high profits.

I appreciate the Member drawing the ad to the attention of the Members of this House. I urge all British Columbians to take advantage of this magnificent programme instituted by this government.

MR. GARDOM: Supplementary to the Hon. Premier: is the Premier prepared to waive Crown immunity under the Mortgage Brokers Act? If he did, the government could be prosecuted for misleading advertisement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that's rhetorical.

MR. GARDOM: This is not a modest 8 per cent per year, and the Premier should inform the people of this province that in 10 years that would hit 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that's a speech.

INSUFFICIENT ADJUSTERS
IN SOME SECTORS OF B.C.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I asked the Minister of Transport and Communications the other day about the lack of adjusters in different areas in British Columbia — Mackenzie, McBride, Fort St. James and Vanderhoof. I would like to know now if he has had time to look into it and what he has done about it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As to the question, at the present time, an adjuster from Prince George makes a trip to Mackenzie on Monday for the first working day of each week. An adjuster from the same office makes a trip to the area west of Prince George on each Tuesday, visiting such places as Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and Endako.

The claims volume in Vanderhoof itself is about 70 per cent of that for the complete western area, and possibly warrants a second visit during the week.

Commencing this week an adjuster will also visit Vanderhoof on a Friday. There is very little claims volume out in McBride. For example, there have only been 47 claims over a three-month period. During the last two weeks there have been two property damage claims and 17 windshield claims. These claims are handled by mail and/or telephone.

If claims are reported which require immediate attention, their adjuster is dispatched to the area irrespective of the day of the week.

The service now being given is more extensive than that provided by the private insurers, as independent adjusters who handled their losses in these areas usually made a trip once every two weeks.

We intend to monitor the situation very closely and provide resident adjusters as required.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

SAANICH HOUSING PROJECT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Housing: The mayor of Saanich has indicated, through the press, reported impatience over provincial government inactivity on a major housing scheme in the Roy Road area of the municipality.

I understand there is a difference of opinion

[ Page 3990 ]

between the Department of Housing and Saanich with respect to densities and the overall development. I wonder if the Minister could indicate: has a meeting been requested or held with Saanich municipal officials specifically to explore some of the differences and the possibility of compromise in order that the project may proceed?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, I was surprised that the new mayor, unlike the former mayor, chose to communicate with me through the media. There is a liaison person in my department, Mr. Jack Williams, for that particular project — that was agreed upon at a meeting that took place some time ago.

I believe that Ker Priestman, although I wouldn't swear to the engineering firm, has been assigned to prepare some specifications for the project, and it's my intention to get in touch with Mayor Lum directly.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, very briefly: is the provincial Department of Housing firmly committed to high-density multi-family development in that scheme?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe that some preliminary proposals were suggested there and that it had quite a variety of things. Now, what is considered high-density? I really think that something in the order of eight units per acre is perhaps realistic in terms of minimum densities today, in view of the availability of land that remains in the urban areas.

MR. CURTIS: We can take it from the Minister then that there is a degree of flexibility with respect to this proposal as far as the province is concerned.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That's true.

JERICHO HILL SCHOOL

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Education Minister: I understood yesterday that she has promised an announcement today about Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. Could the Minister also tell us whether or not she will ensure that her Deputy or Mr. Walsh, or both, will be in attendance at a meeting of the parents at Jericho Hill on Friday night, as has been requested on a number of occasions?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I'm pleased to mention to the House that I am intending to announce this afternoon that there will be a public inquiry, a one-man public inquiry, set up into the operation of the Jericho Hill School.

As to the attendance of the parents' meeting — I don't think it's necessary for two officials to attend that meeting. At the moment we are discussing if someone should go. I understand there is another meeting on Monday night also, where someone will be in attendance.

ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT
TILBURY ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: may I ask him whether he intends to make public the Land Commission's alternative proposals for the Tilbury Island industrial site, in particular where these proposals differ with the recommendations of the environmental and land use committee of the cabinet?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when we announced the proposal, I would deal, as any other person in this province, with the Land Commission on a fair and equitable basis. That has been done and announcements will be made in due course.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I take the Minister's reply to indicate that the Land Commission will have the same power as to veto over this proposal, as it has over other proposals for industrial development in farm areas elsewhere in the Province, areas which might be held by private interests?

HON. MR. LAUK: There is no question of any veto on the part of the Land Commission. There is the procedure set out within the Land Commission Act with respect to that procedure. My department and my officials are proceeding in accordance with that procedure, as anyone else in the province would.

PROCEDURE IN NAMING
NEW FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the admiral of fleets a simple question: as the fleet continues to enlarge and with the acquisition of the latest new vessel, could he tell the House what procedure there is in choosing a new name for the new vessels?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is the same procedure as in the past. You look at the names; you look at municipalities that are in the area of the sea coast, and you name them after those.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm very interested in that answer. I wonder if the

[ Page 3991 ]

Minister or the admiral could tell the House if, in his deliberations recently, the title "Queen of Oak Bay" was considered. (Laughter.) That's a serious question, Mr. Speaker. I want to know that at least it was given consideration — unfavourable consideration, but consideration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is yes. But Oak Bay is a small municipality and this is a jumbo ship. We thought we'd need a larger municipality. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Waffle, waffle, waffle.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary question to the Minister: have you considered the community within my constituency called Skookumchuck as well? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Queen of Kinbasket.

MRS. JORDAN: Just listening to the Member for Oak Bay and the Minister, Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear that nursery rhyme — "Rub-a-dub, two admirals in a tub"?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is improper.

COST OF PHYSICAL EXAMS
FOR ELDERLY DRIVERS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Health. In view of the fact that senior citizens are being required on an increasing basis to have more frequent physical examinations to secure their driver's licences, and these exams cost $10 and are not covered by B.C. Hospital Insurance, has the Minister come to a conclusion that B.C. Hospital Insurance could cover this cost for them?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be Hospital Insurance expenditure if in fact we went that route.

MRS. JORDAN: B.C. Medical.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, it would be B.C. Medical. I must say we are considering that along with a number of other areas where there's requirement for a physical examination. Beyond that we're doing a study at the present time on just how necessary or how good it would be to go to the point of providing free testing for anybody. It's a bit of a problem and we just have to overcome one or two areas. But we're certainly considering.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Private bills, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 50.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Section 4, Mr. Chairman, is one which will repeal section 8. I was wondering if the chairman carrying the bill (Mr. Cummings) could tell me what the substance is of the section that is being repealed.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Actually your party never bothered to come to the committee at all so I was wondering why you want to know about section 4.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, as a Member of this House I believe I have the right to ask questions without being insulted by that Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. I asked a very simple question. I hope he can answer a simple question.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): All he ever does is insult people!

MR. CUMMINGS: I just stated that his party never ever came to the committee meetings. Is that an insult?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is a section that might be repealing a very substantive section in the Vancouver Charter. The chairman, I'm sure, must recognize which section is being repealed and if, in the wisdom of the committee, there was justification for this withdrawal, and just what section 8 is. I'm not asking the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who was not on the committee; I'm asking the chairman who was carrying this bill. It doesn't matter. I'm not asking him whether the Members of my party were at the committee meetings. I'm asking just if he could explain to me just what the section is that's being repealed and the reasons for its repeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, are we going to get an answer on this section 4?

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

[ Page 3992 ]

Member may ask a question, he may not demand an answer.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'm certainly not demanding. I'm not one to demand answers. I just thought the Member wanted to harass me a little bit this morning when he gave his original answer. After having let loose with those words against me and my party, maybe now he wants to answer the question on the repeal of section 8 and its substance.

Section 4 approved.

MR. CHABOT: No answers from "open government."

Sections 5 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if we could get an explanation as to why it's necessary to strike out the word "five" in the third line of subsection (1) and substitute the word "eight." I wonder why it was necessary that these changes be implemented at this time. I'm led to believe that the original procedure was adequate and that there was no need for this change. I'm wondering if the chairman could explain to me the necessity for this change.

Section 29 approved.

MR. CHABOT: No answers.

Sections 30 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I can also speak to 49 at the same time because they're companion sections.

One thing that I do wish the Hon. Premier had done…. I wasn't in the House for about three minutes this morning so he may have done it then. It would be a good thing if all of the Members were fully aware of the order of business today. This bill did catch me particularly by surprise and I'd very much like to thank my colleague from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for maintaining the debate for a few moments because I would like to….

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: I didn't expect this one at all. I'm sorry, I might have misunderstood you but I didn't anticipate that this one was coming up.

However, dealing with sections 48 and 49 of the amendment to the Vancouver Charter, Mr. Chairman, these are more dramatic changes in procedure than those heretofore carried on in the City of Vancouver wherein the taxpayers in the City of Vancouver in the past would have always have had to be approached for the expenditure of funds contemplated under these sections.

The net effect of this section is that the aldermen in the City of Vancouver and the mayor are given carte blanche authority without the consent or even an opportunity for an expression of opinion of Vancouver taxpayers to borrow money from a federal authority or from a provincial authority for the uses indicated within these two sections. The uses indicated are the redevelopment of the False Creek area or for the creation of housing.

Now let me state one thing abundantly clearly and that is that I personally am in favour of the development of the False Creek area. There is a great deal of battling going on in the City of Vancouver as to the kind of proposal that would be in the best interests of all of the citizens, but I think there is a general consensus that the False Creek area should be developed. Secondly, like all Members of this House I am very much in favour of the need to create housing.

The opposition I take to this section as strenuously as I can is that if the City of Vancouver chooses to go this route without regard to the position taken by the taxpayers in the city, I think that this is something that they should themselves — the city fathers — have taken to the taxpayers in the City of Vancouver on referendum to have them make up their minds, as they wish to have this complete delegation of authority to their city council without regard to the interests of the taxpayer.

Any money that is borrowed from the federal or provincial authority under the purposes of this statute for the development of False Creek or for the development of housing can well fall as an impost, and indeed will fall as an impost, upon the Vancouver taxpayer. His rights to make a money expenditure decision are emasculated by virtue of the provisions of this statute. It is certainly, as far as I can see, the death knell of the referendum process.

If the citizens of a community in the Province of British Columbia decide that they wish to take this route, I say well and good. If they wish to make that decision that this is to be the proper route of the complete delegation of authority to their elected representatives to borrow money for the purposes of these projects, okay. I'm not quarrelling with that. But that opportunity has not been given to them.

It is true that this amendment, which did not come in the original bill, was advertised, at the insistence of this speaker, in the papers and there was precious little response to it. I received a couple of wires supporting the stand I have taken here. I didn't receive any correspondence supporting the stand

[ Page 3993 ]

initiated by city council which the government is apparently prepared to rubber stamp today.

I think we are denuding the citizen of the opportunity to have a voice in the expenditure of funds which can well become his responsibility. It has been argued by some that these are going to be self-liquidating projects. There is no certainty to that, absolutely no certainty at all. If they are self-liquidating, well and good; but these are public projects and public projects have certainly had a history not only in this province and this city but in this country of being far from self-liquidating.

I feel very strongly that this section is one that should be opposed from the viewpoint that this is a decision that should be made by the taxpayers in this area. That decision should not be emasculated or abdicated by virtue of a decision of this Legislature to the city council of the City of Vancouver.

Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 50, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION INCORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees' Association Incorporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 151, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 151; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just a moment to mention to the House a word of very sincere appreciation to Mr. Percy Wright who will be retiring this year and who has served the people of British Columbia extremely well over the past 20 years. He has done an excellent job in bringing about this legislation in a very complex field. Hopefully, this bill will go a long way to start unraveling the problems we have. I would like the House to express its very deep appreciation.

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

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

On the amendment to section 24.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, speaking on the amendment which has been proposed by the Minister of Finance: is it correct that the purpose of this amendment is to overcome the existing contradiction in section 16 of Bill 147, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act, which states that for the purposes of the authority the government will provide an annual grant equivalent to the sum produced by a levy of one-tenth of a mill on the total assessed value of all taxable and tax exempt property in the province?

It seems that without this amendment that would

[ Page 3994 ]

not be possible. Is that the purpose of the amendment? Perhaps the Minister of Finance would indicate if that is the case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is an incidental result of the conflict you mentioned, Mr. Member, but that is not the only purpose. It will probably solve the problem you raised.

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

On section 29.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

Section 36 approved.

On section 37.

MR. CURTIS: On section 37, I wonder if we could have some assurance from the Minister of Finance that when this new Act and the accompanying legislation, Bill 147, are given royal assent every effort will be made to ensure that members of courts of revision are fully informed with respect to their powers and duties. This section deals with their powers.

I think from time to time in the recent past and earlier we have encountered situations where members of the courts were not properly prepared in order to deal with the cases which were presented to them. Apart from the assurance, which may be forthcoming from the Minister, I would urge upon him and his department that this shortcoming in a number of instances be corrected to the best possible extent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised, Mr. Member, that it is essentially a people's court in terms of an appeal. There is a gap, though. Rather than training these people, I am advised that it would be a welcome suggestion that borders on your comments to have auxiliary competent people ready to advise on technical problems. We will take that recommendation you have made.

Section 37 approved.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 41 as amended.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this doesn't preclude appointing lay people to assessment appeal boards, given subsection (2) in that section.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't preclude it, Mr. Member but the desire is expressed that they should be qualified. But it does not preclude lay people being named.

MR. CURTIS: Another observation on this section, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Finance a few moments ago referred to this as a people's court. This is an extension of that under this section. Again, I would hope that the new organization will set out clearly and concisely for the individuals who wish to appeal through the court of revision and then along the line, the mechanism — the time limits and so on, too often in the past it has been stated in legalese (if I may use that colloquialism) and from the outset the individual who has the complaint with respect to his or her assessment should understand where, when, how, he or she may go and how long he or she has.

This is an extremely important point. The Minister is concerned about the individual, from his many statements, and I think this is one area where you can

[ Page 3995 ]

greatly assist the individual.

There is considerable confusion associated with the person who suddenly is presented with a dramatic increase in assessment or a change. They are confused. They are uncertain as to how to go about it and what the mechanism is. They are somewhat intimidated, I submit, by terms such as court of revision, and assessment appeal board. It sounds very grand and a little frightening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I am advised that this would be an excellent suggestion for the assessment authority itself to include an explanation of mill rates, of assessments, and their relationship with each other. As a matter of fact, most people aren't MLAs and don't have an intimate knowledge of how mill rates affect taxation, like most of us here do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Simple and compound interest.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there are simple Members, and there are compounded Members. The Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, is getting the Liberal poll of 8 per cent confused with the other factors.

Seriously, it is an excellent suggestion, and we will pass on to the assessment authority the suggestion that an overall booklet on taxation, including the details in very clear language of what's involved should be made available either through the municipal hall, or perhaps even mailed to every homeowner from the assessment authority.

MR. CURTIS: With the tax notice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, perhaps with the notice. It's a good suggestion, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one or two more observations on that section, Mr. Chairman. Is it the intention to set up more than one assessment appeal board, and will they be regionalized? Is that the intention?

I didn't prepare an amendment, but I would like the Minister of Finance to consider perhaps a regulation under this section that no person may serve on two kinds of appeal boards, a court of revision and an assessment appeal board. This has happened in the past and, I believe, causes some conflicts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That won't happen again.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to say again that I have a serious concern about this business of loading the boards with professional people. There should be lay people on those boards, and certainly there should be qualified people as well, but there needs to be a balance of the two.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To the first question, yes, there will be more than one regional office. I am advised that when the authority is established they will be divided into regions so that people can have more direct access. In terms of lay people serving, there is a concern about becoming over professional. Once the authority is structured, it is hoped that as time goes by there will be less and less interference by the Legislature.

But there is a danger, when you establish such an authority, that it does become remote from direct responses from people, through their MLAs and to the Legislature. We would hope that they would be concerned with that. There is a transition period, an interim period, to establish this.

We recognize the danger, it's just like professional social workers having all the say in that field, or doctors.

MR. McCLELLAND: Or in the finance field.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or in the finance field? Well, a social worker brings a little heart to the finance department. (Laughter.) The point you have made is valid, and we will certainly pass the observation on with support, to the people involved.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the conflict situation of persons serving on two boards?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're looking at that.

Section 41 as amended approved.

Section 42 approved.

On section 43.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 43 as amended approved.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

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

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3996 ]

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Sections 61 to 65 inclusive approved.

On section 66.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 66 as amended approved.

Sections 67 to 77 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 151, Assessment Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 154, Mr. Speaker.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 154; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask some clarification on the 8E entitled "Roster," particularly the last subsection (3) where it says "the roster prepared shall not be used by the clerk of the court for selection of names for a panel unless the roster has first been approved in writing by the Attorney-General."

I just really wonder if the Minister could explain really why the Attorney-General should have the final say in deciding which persons who have been suggested for a roster to serve on these panels. Why does the final ultimate power seem to reside with the Attorney-General in effect to veto the names of certain people?

Now the obvious reason for my question is that this is very much a new venture and when I spoke in second reading I applauded the idea of lay persons on panels. It's been made quite clear that on any point of law the judge concerned would be the person to make the decisions and that in fact there would be no risk of lay people intruding into areas where they're not versed.

But on the other hand I think it introduces an implication here that somehow or other the Attorney-General's department could veto people of very great potential to serve in this new area of public service. I wonder if there's some unseen reason that isn't obvious as to why this was put in the bill?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): The Unified Family Court Act is administered by the Attorney-General. The other thing is that the nature of the project isn't one where we're looking at a number of mechanisms. We have agreed that we will not make any major changes to any legislation affecting family and children until we have the reports back from the commission, the Berger Commission. So that there certainly will be input from the department.

As I said in the beginning, the Unified Family Court Act is administered by the Attorney-General. It seems appropriate that that's where it is. But as we get recommendations back from the commission, of course, then we will be looking.

As we said, for the purpose of the commission the investigation of family and children's law is to see whether we need to rewrite the whole thing. This is just a mechanism for them at the moment. I have no anxiety about having input into the selection of the panel; that's not the problem at all.

We have within the courts a number of people from the field who are working very closely. I can assure the Member that there is no problem there. We will certainly wait to see how it works when we get the recommendations — which will, of course, come before the House anyway.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 3997 ]

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

Motion approved.

Bill 154, Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 85.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments in my name on the order paper to section 1. (See appendix.) I think the Hon. Members have received an unofficial copy with these amendments incorporated to make it easier for the committee.

On the amendments.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister said anything on that. Could he describe what provincial employees and what municipal employees will have to disclose? Are you saying here that they all must? Certainly there must be a level of cut-off — say, a truck driver in a municipality: does he have to disclose?

Where is the cut-off? Who will and who won't have to disclose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we leave that to the municipal council. We say that a municipal employee — down at the bottom of that first page — is a person, et cetera, who is designated by the council to be a municipal employee. I would expect that municipal managers should be designated, but even that decision is up to the council. A truck driver should not be designated.

MR. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities, you know…they're all employees. Maybe they'll interpret this that all their staff must file disclosure. I don't think that's the intent of this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's not the intent.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We're dealing with all the amendments to section 1 now, Mr. Chairman, are we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there's an addition to line 9: "…money or other property entrusted to or received by a provincial official, municipal official, public employee or municipal employee in trust for another person."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Hon. Attorney-General prepared to indicate that the holding of a share or shares in a company in trust would qualify under this amendment in the category of a debt which need not be disclosed?

Let me give you a clear example, one which affects me and my profession, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and perhaps others here in this assembly, and certainly in municipal councils, who may, in the course of their responsibilities, hold a share or shares of a company in trust for some other person.

Could we have a clear indication as to whether or not that holding of a share, which is not beneficially owned, need be disclosed or whether it is exempted under this legislation, under this amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we always felt that it was exempted where the property you held was not your own in any sense but something that you held because you were an executor of an estate or a lawyer with trust money entrusted to you — property that's held for somebody else like that. It was never the intention of the Act to encompass that kind of property as being something that should be disclosed. It didn't belong to the official. But to make it clear, we've added this section.

Amendments approved.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper, page 22 of orders of the day for today.

"Section 1 line 30: to amend the definition of 'municipal official' appearing in section 1 by adding the following words after the word 'Act' in the 30th line: 'or a member of the board of directors of a regional resources board or a community resources board constituted under the Community Resources Act.'"

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that as community resource boards gain increasing strength and experience in the Province of British Columbia under legislation which has passed through this session, it is important that they be considered in the same respect as Members of this Legislature, designated public employees and municipal officials.

[ Page 3998 ]

They will be making decisions which affect individuals and their community. I move the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not disagreeing with the intent of the amendment. We've considered the point and we do feel that under the definition of public employee, which is very broad, it encompasses these people where they make that kind of decision-making power.

That's the definition on page 2 under public employee: "employed by or appointed to a board, agency, or commission where such employment or appointment requires, under an Act, an order or approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; or a member of a board, agency, or commission established under an Act."

Just under an Act; the community resource boards are established under an Act. We do feel they can be designated.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in his heart of hearts, I think, the Attorney-General would not really mind accepting this if it had been suggested perhaps by someone else. But surely it isn't appropriate under public employee. Whether it is broad or not, I imagine, could be debated for some time. But they are not public employees in that sense. They are officials, more correctly. They are elected. I submit that they do fit into the general description of municipal official as I indicated a few moments ago.

Perhaps we're arguing just where it should go. I would be very, very pleased to have the Attorney-General accept this amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept it, but I'm not disagreeing. I think we'll watch the thing over a year and see. If there's any defect in our language that we don't embrace sufficient people, we'll be glad to look at that again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before we vote, I would ask the Hon. Members to send up a signed copy of the amendment before we vote on it. But in this case we'll vote on it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If it's on the order paper, we're all right.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's on the order paper.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: I just wanted to add one word to section 1 and thank the Attorney-General for his explanation and assurance in response to my friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) concerning money or other property that is held in trust and not by way of beneficial interest.

I would just like to make this statement so it is abundantly clear for all of the public officials who could be affected by the interpretation of this section.

Under the former Companies Act, as the Attorney-General well knows, you have to have two shareholders in order to incorporate a company. It was the usual and convenient method of incorporation of companies that the initial shareholders would usually be the incorporating individual who was a lawyer and maybe his secretary. Then the shares were rather quickly transferred from them to the true owners, the beneficial owners of the company.

But in many instances, it was desirous, to take a hypothetical case — which is the only thing I'm permitted to do as a practising solicitor — say, Joe's Bakery…. We incorporate Joe's Bakery and it becomes Joe's Bakery Limited. Joe would request, Mr. Attorney-General, that he receive nine shares….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Do I have the ear of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: He would request that he have nine shares in his name and the other share would remain in the name of his solicitor, for the beneficial interest of Joe; but then they would be the two shareholders. You have given the explanation to the House. Under these circumstances, there is not any necessity for that share to be disclosed by a public official.

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear, because this is very common practice and has been common practice in B.C. for years. It's just a question of convenience for shareholders and company.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with the explanation as long as, say, the solicitor in that case has no beneficial interest.

MR. GARDOM: That's right.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He may vote the things in terms of organization of a company in a purely formal way. I wouldn't think that voting of the share — even that — would constitute any kind of beneficial ownership. He's holding it for somebody else.

[ Page 3999 ]

MR. GARDOM: Right, section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 2 standing in my name on the Order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just as a follow-up, perhaps, to the amendment which the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) put in earlier, would the Attorney-General assure us here, under this amendment to subsection (1) and amendment to section 2, that people like those people who are now going to be directly elected to resource boards and regional resource boards and school boards are covered under that? Any other people who are going to be elected directly by the public in any future changes that the government may make, are they covered under this section? Will they be required to make the same kinds of disclosures as other elected people?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, no, only those elected people who are embraced in this Act. We've taken out improvement districts, for example. Since they are elected, since they are not covered by the Act, they are not covered. If it is desirable to extend this further, it can be done at a later session, but it is just what the Act says.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we've just passed a bill recently in this House making the powers of these kinds of resource boards pretty far-reaching in the community, both with respect to the spending of public money and with respect to the kind of obligations they will have to the community. I see that as these people expand their duties and take away some of the duties of the present municipal councils, they may be in as a severe conflict-of-interest situation as a municipal official may find himself in — or more severe, as the Member says. I think it would be a tragic mistake for the government not to include that right now rather than waiting for a future time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the fact that they are elected does not mean that they cannot also be designated as public officials under the….

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, will they?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think anyone making important decisions should be designated.

That's my feeling. I haven't got a commitment to give at the present time because the designation in that case would be by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. My feeling is that they should be designated if they have that decision-making power.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I understand the Attorney-General's explanation, but the obligation to disclose on the basis of a candidate is as a candidate for election as a provincial official or a municipal official. But the right to designate is not in either of those two categories but in respect to a public employee. Therefore, if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in its wisdom, decides to designate members of resource boards as being persons who must make a disclosure, they still do not fall into the category of individuals who must disclose at the time they stand for election. It seems to me that the people in any elected position should be included in either the provision of provincial official or municipal official, or else they can run for elected office without having to make any prior disclosure. Only if they win do they have to disclose, and then only if designated.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to make the point that this section was probably the one section that caused most of the problems among all of the municipal people of this province. When the Attorney-General stood in the House the other day and facetiously announced that his amendments were going to make the bill stronger — and they do in a couple of instances — this is the section that makes the bill palatable now to the people of this province who are in positions on municipal councils particularly.

I wish to say that it is too bad that the Attorney-General had to go off half-cocked in the first place and bring in a bad bill, but it is fortunate that he has had the good sense to recognize his mistakes and make some of these changes. I would like to thank him for it. I think it has set at ease the minds of all of, the public officials and municipal employees in this province. It is a good amendment, one that should have been in the bill originally.

[ Page 4000 ]

Amendments approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment I wish to hand in. It is simply worded. It is an amendment to include after the words "municipal official" — "municipal employee, public employee." It is in section 3, line 48. It's an amendment to add after the word "official," the words "municipal employee." If you don't want to take time to count it out, if you look at page 4 and see down there where the type comes out to the edge, in the middle, "…the written disclosure made under section 2 by the Provincial official, municipal official, 'municipal employee,' public employee…." It should always have been there. It's a stenographic error.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

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

MR. CURTIS: Point of order. Is the Attorney-General handing you written, signed amendments, as you indicated earlier — I'm not speaking of the last one — but as you indicated earlier when I was proposing my amendment? You said nothing, which is fairly commonplace these days. Do we have one rule for that side and another rule for this side?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point made by the Member for Saanich and the Islands, technically speaking, all amendments should be signed and handed in at the time they are moved. However, we have been relaxing this rule for both sides. I'm requiring it only for those which do not appear on the order paper.

MR. CURTIS: I think it would have been appropriate for you, Mr. Chairman, to have spoken out and indicated that that was the case at the time rather than having to have it drawn to your attention.

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against section 4 and against the amendment. This is the area of this bill which we, in this party, believe is not fair to public employees and elected officials. Later on I hope to move the amendment which is on the order paper in my name.

The part about this section and, in fact, the part about the bill which I have uneasy feelings is that the implication seems to be that elected officials are guilty until proven innocent. This seems to me to be a complete reversal of accepted traditional approaches to the rights and freedoms of individuals in our society. Not only are we talking about disclosure, but also the amendments which the Minister has brought into section 4. They involve all kinds of permission, in fact encouragement, to publish the disclosure documents in every corner of the province — publish in the Gazettes and to government agents as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate. In other words, the cabinet, by its choice, on disclosure day, can choose to take full-page ads in all the newspapers across the province, if it so chooses. This is the power which this bill is taking in section 4 under these amendments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a public document.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in second reading I acknowledged that it is perfectly reasonable that disclosure information by people holding the kind of positions that we hold — a position of privilege and power and confidential information — indeed, to make a disclosure document available by us as part of our responsibility of being an elected official, I accept. But I don't accept a complete and total lack of responsibility on the part of the citizens who are entitled to the disclosure document. And I certainly reject this concept that the cabinet, for whatever reason, and regarding whatever person or persons who are elected or employed, can, in fact, spread the information of the disclosure document to the extent that is included in the amendments to section 4.

I just happen to believe that honour and honesty and respect for politicians is very desirable, but there is a two-way street in this whole situation. It just isn't fair, in my view, that we as elected people should be totally at the whim and fancy and curiosity of any citizen who takes it into his or her mind to inquire into my particular privacy in this regard. I've already admitted that a certain measure of privacy is lost when you accept the kinds of positions we are talking about. I acknowledge that and accept it. But I don't think the pendulum has to swing right over to the other side of the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is tending to discuss the principle of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm discussing the amendment. I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. Let me read to you what section 4, as amended, reads — particularly referring on page 21, the orders of the day, June 13, line 12.

[ Page 4001 ]

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may direct the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the province to publish in the Gazette, or send to such government agents as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate, every written disclosure filed by a provincial official."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's section 7.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's section 7. We're on section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Hon. Member is discussing something contained in section 7.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry; it is section 7. I'll get to that in section 7. Part of what I'm talking about in section 4 in terms of what the bill now does can perhaps be better debated when I introduce my amendment to section 4. I apologize for confusing it with section 7.

Amendments approved.

On section 4 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 4. (See appendix.)

Section 4 without amendment, as I said earlier, places no responsibility whatsoever on the individual in society seeking to invade the privacy of the elected or employed officials as we are talking about. It is my very strong feeling that, while disclosure of the nature that we have discussed in second reading is acceptable, I think the degree to which the pendulum swings in this bill in regard to a complete invasion of the person's privacy is, I believe, completely unnecessary.

I think any citizen in society is entitled to find out what my disclosure document contains. I feel, on the other hand, that should not be the kind of information to be sought out unless there is some reason. It's all very well to say that individuals in our position may have conflicts of interest which we fail to reveal in the course of debate where we have authority to influence the debate or to pass legislation to our advantage. This is really most important; the information should be available to any citizen who wonders if the Member for Oak Bay, for example, has shares in this property or that property which may be in the process of being acquired by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who spends a lot of time acquiring property these days.

To be able to know that, I think, is perfectly reasonable. But to show at least some simple reason why that should be known by the inquiring citizen, I think, is equally fair and honest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'll be able to read it in the Oak Bay Leader anyway so why should they file an affidavit?

MR. WALLACE: This approach, as I said earlier, is completely uncontrolled or unconditional. I don't think it is fair that the citizen who has perhaps nothing more to do some day can walk in and spend an hour or two reading all the disclosure documents for every Member in this House for no particular reason other than sheer curiosity.

It also leaves the feeling, in my view, that we're all guilty until proven innocent. The idea is that somehow or other, unless these disclosure documents are not only filed but available to be seen at any time and with no conditions attached, the intent of disclosure is not realized.

I feel the amendment I am moving only asks one or two simple things, Mr. Chairman. It suggests, I think, a measure of fair play and justice to which we as elected officials are entitled.

First of all, it is always a principle of law, as the Attorney-General knows, traditional for centuries, that a person should be able to face his accuser or know who the accuser is. The Attorney-General needn't shrug or grimace. If somebody wants to look at my disclosure document directly or indirectly, it implies that he or she has some suspicion as to the fact that I am not honest.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: He is an accuser. Anybody who invades my privacy is an accuser. If somebody wants to know what's in the document, they should have a reason.

Maybe the point the Attorney-General has made so plain from his position is that he thinks that being a nosy parker in itself is a justification to invade my privacy and his privacy. That's exactly what you've just said. You're either a nosy parker or an accuser; you can't be both.

If you're not just a nosy parker and you want to see these disclosure documents, although it isn't said, it is implying that you have some reason to believe this man or woman is in some way being dishonest or is abusing his position of power, privilege and authority as an elected official. It's got to be one or the other.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, in my amendment is that I think anyone is entitled to accuse me of anything if they want to, but with some reason. Our whole traditional system of justice for centuries is that a person can accuse another in one way or

[ Page 4002 ]

another but he has to take some responsibility for that accusation. I can't even call the admiral of the fleet a fool unless I either withdraw it or try and prove that he is a fool. When you accuse somebody….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, this particular issue or aspect of this bill really strikes at the heart of justification for this bill. I've accepted the justification for the bill, provided there is some responsibility placed on the individual seeking the information and some recognition of the fact that that person surely has to have some modicum of reason as to why he wants to see it. If he doesn't have some modicum of reason in an accusatory sense, then indeed he's simply being curious and mischievous and a nosy parker. I don't think, in running for public office, I or any one of us in this chamber should be subjected to that kind of action from nosy parkers.

On the other hand, there is the other side of this premise. If it is something more than just curiosity and the person is, in fact, implying that I or whomever he's inquiring about is guilty of some misconduct, then I think he should put his name to the inquiry. If he wants to see the disclosure document he should at least put his name to it. I think it is only again in the tradition of justice that the person whose document is under consideration should also be made aware of the person who is asking to see it.

I don't think there is anything but just a continuation of tradition in that concept. That is what the amendment suggests. I would like to make it very plain to the Attorney-General that in asking for a reason I'm not suggesting there should be any judgment of the reason when it's given. I don't mean that the reason should have to meet any standards or qualifications. Just simply say, "I want to know the Attorney-General's assets because…." and because it happens to be Wednesday the 25th and it's his birthday, well, that's fine.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The final part of the amendment just bears out the third aspect of this particular issue. If someone does act in a frivolous way or simply for a nosy parker reason, or worse still…. Here's a point that I'm amazed has not been emphasized more. What if someone seeks the disclosure information for their personal gain? There may be reasons why my next door neighbour wants to know what my assets are or the companies with which I'm associated. All the onus seems to be on me to prove my innocence, as though I am guilty, but the person who is looking at my disclosure document may be wanting to do that for his personal gain.

All I'm saying in this amendment is that the inquiring person should identify himself, give a reason, and be accountable. That's all I'm saying. I'm sure the Minister as a lawyer knows very well, a hundred times better than I do, that when you make accusations you have to be accountable for your accusations.

All I'm saying in the third part of the amendment is that people having given a reason, and having accused or implied accusation and then shown to have done so in a frivolous way or for their own personal, financial gain, are guilty of an offence and subject to the same process of law as is the elected official who fails to disclose.

I think these are points which really are not asking very much; they're simply putting the whole issue of disclosure into a sense of balance. It certainly extends, in my view, to the elected officials a measure of fair play and justice which is nothing new. It simply would be providing for each of us and for everybody covered by this bill the kind of justice they have as an ordinary citizen outside this House.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I listened with great interest to the former speaker's presentation. I concur with it fully. I would hope that the Minister would accept this amendment for this reason.

I don't intend to repeat the point he has made so eloquently.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, obviously we have to repeat things over and over and over again before we get any semblance of understanding from the Attorney-General of this department on some very serious matters.

I want to bring up two points from the family point of view, but I do so with some hesitation. I think, in a debate such as this, on a subject such as this, in the world in which we are living, that it must be brought forward.

We are all aware that within 24 hours of the disclosure date every public official and his or her assets in the Province of British Columbia will, in general, be public knowledge. My two concerns there are not on a personal basis, because I don't have that many assets and I don't mind disclosing them to anyone who wants to see them if, as the Member says, he is willing to give his reason and he is willing to leave his name.

What does concern me is the children of public officials in the Province of British Columbia. I think we all know, if not from experience in our own family, then certainly from seeing other families and certainly from examining children in their activities,

[ Page 4003 ]

that children can be very kind and they can be very cruel without meaning to be cruel. I also believe that many people know that children of people who serve in the community in many aspects, and certainly children of public officials and politicians, can at times have a very difficult time, depending on the political climate of the time.

I believe that there is a great opportunity by this type of frivolous disclosure for the children of public officials and politicians to take an unnecessary ribbing or, perhaps, some very serious criticism from other children, which isn't meant that way but may emanate from table conversation in the home with their parents. It may emanate from comments made by a few unthinking people in the life they lead, whether it's in the classroom or a club.

The people out there are just as human as anywhere else. A casual comment at the supper table by one parent about a mayor or an alderman or alderwoman or Member of the Legislature…. "Man, look at the companies he owns!" — because it doesn't list what they own — "They're rich. I wonder why they didn't give more to this charity." Or: "Why don't they do this?"

Just that simple comment may be expressed at school the next day by that child, probably innocently, against the child of this family. This is picked up in the school and carried on. Perhaps, as I say, a teacher, quite innocently, might think the same thing and some sort of an inference pops out in the school.

I really believe that there is a great danger here that these disadvantages that children of many public officials face — and there are many advantages but there are some disadvantages — can be greatly enhanced by this. This is a pretty traumatic experience for a child who may be on a 10-cent-a-week allowance and whose parents may choose to live in a very modest fashion for very real reasons. For this child to find himself or herself in this position where their classmates are taunting them, perhaps with no malicious intent but just the way children act….

I also think there is another even more serious consideration. We have been most fortunate that it has not happened in British Columbia or in the majority of the areas of Canada. But the world around us is in a period of turmoil where there are irresponsible people acting. They are indulging in hijacking; they are indulging in more criminal activities, crime and robbery; and they are indulging in kidnapping.

I think, by this type of overall public disclosure without reason, without record, that if we have no serious kidnappers in British Columbia — and I sincerely hope we don't — we may have people who are bordering on a very thin line between responsible action and irresponsible action for health reasons. This may manifest itself in an unwarranted and, perhaps, in an unplanned attack on a member of the family of a public official, to whom they might be directed through this type of disclosure.

I don't suggest that by recording who is examining these facts you would necessarily stop this sort of thing. I do suggest that there would then be a record on file so that if a tragedy such as this did happen, there would at least be a possible avenue through which the proper authorities could gain some inkling as to who might be involved.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's just my point; you're right on.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: But if you accept this amendment, as I understand it, Mr. Attorney-General, the newspapers will have to state an acceptable reason for printing that information.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The public has a right to know. That's all they have to say.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I assume that this wouldn't be an accepted reason; I assume that there would have to be a….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: People would have to show just cause. We're not in public life to make money for the newspapers; we're in public life to serve the people. The purpose of this bill and the section that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was seeking to amend is to exhibit fair play to the public and to protect the public interest.

I really don't believe that the publishing of everyone's assets in the newspapers is going to protect the public interest. I do accept that the right of an individual for a just reason, as suggested in this amendment, through a proper performance, to examine a person's assets is quite acceptable.

It disturbs me, during this debate and not only on this amendment, that the Attorney-General has either exhibited a dishearteningly frivolous attitude in this House or an attitude and words, which I won't repeat but are on the record, which, to say the least, are far in excess of acceptable from any Attorney-General of any jurisdiction. This is a very disturbing point. Why will the Attorney-General not listen to reasonable and responsible suggestions?

Surely the Attorney-General must be concerned about some of the points other speakers have brought out and this point I have brought out in relation to

[ Page 4004 ]

the families of people in public office. I am sure that if the Attorney-General canvasses many, many people who have served in public office, in retrospect they will say to you: "At the time I didn't think it was difficult for my children but, in fact, there were times."

I'm sure that if the Attorney-General had children in primary grades or high school at this time, on two or three bills he has brought into this House and possibly this bill, he would find that the debate of this House and the disclosures made in this House regarding this bill could very easily have an effect on his children.

That's fine. That's part of being in the family of a public figure. But the type of disclosure you are seeking to allow to be released indiscriminately in the newspapers or to anyone who has the curiosity or to anyone who might wish to profit, whether it is in a business sense or the sense that I have mentioned, through illegal action such as a possible kidnapping, is dangerous. I think, Mr. Attorney-General, that you have the responsibility to those children and to those families.

I would urge you again to carry on with the bill. We all believe in public disclosure; we all believe in the right of anyone with a reasonable reason — or who might possibly suspect the activities of any public official — to examine the records to either support or discharge that reason. We don't believe in the right to subject families to unnecessary risks through irrational disclosure or unnecessary harassment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat because this was the debate, and I'm not saying it wasn't a good debate, yesterday. It's the basic principle of the bill that these shall be public documents. That's the principle; that's what the opposition voted for.

We don't disclose quantum of richness in this bill. We don't believe there should be affidavits to be signed by people who want to look at a public document — and we think it should be a public document — or reasons given because the reasons could be frivolous or misleading; there is no way of checking up on them.

So this is really the bill and really, in effect, you're trying to have reverse disclosure. You're going to say, "We'll disclose, but you watch out, you little voter who comes in and looks at my record, you might be in trouble yourself. I regard you as the person accusing me." The Member has practically said this. "Watch your step. I've got nothing to hide." If you've got nothing to hide, nobody can take advantage for personal gain of your return. If it's fair, of course they can't. The release of fair information subjects nobody to any kind of blackmail or harassment as long as it's fair, truthful information.

MR. WALLACE: That's not what I said and you know it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is the result of what you've been saying, that you'd make these people accusers. You want the voter put in an accusatory role before he can look at public documents. That's what you're saying. Why don't you have the courage to vote against the bill? If you're against the principle of open disclosure in a public document, oppose the principle of this bill. That's what you should do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We had this debate. There's a basic division. I don't want to get into an argument and debate within the Social Credit caucus because I kind of suspect that some of them are really against this bill. I'll have a glass of water, but we cannot accept the amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: We've heard a typical example of distortion, again by the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, I think it's an excellent amendment put forward by the Conservative leader, and may this one action make him deserve that additional windfall he's going to get from the government.

It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and we'd like to support it. I don't see why, if a person in a position of elected office at the provincial level is willing to put everything up front, then why shouldn't anyone who wants to use that information put it right up front along with him, sign his name on the dotted line? What's wrong with that, Mr. Attorney-General? What's wrong with giving reasons for wanting access to the kind of disclosures that are going to be made available?

The concern is not really about making those disclosures public, but it's the availability of abuses that it will cause, the fact that it's open to so much misinterpretation. Why not disclosure for some kind of cause? There's nothing wrong with that. You've gone half-way, Mr. Attorney-General, by exempting municipal employees and public employees from the full disclosure, so why can't you go the rest of the way and make the same kind of legislation available for provincial officials?

There isn't any doubt that the people in this House accept the concept of a loss of privacy once they become elected officials. Nevertheless, even they've lost that sense of privacy….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! The Hon.

[ Page 4005 ]

Member for Langley has the floor. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) not to carry on a dialogue while a Member has the floor. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: Watch your blood pressure!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the Members of this House accept the fact that once they become elected, they lose a certain degree of privacy, in fact, maybe all their privacy, I don't know. Nevertheless, they shouldn't lose the right to be treated in the same manner as every other citizen is treated with regard to fairness. It's with that kind of thing in mind we say there should be cause given for anyone who wants to use the kind of disclosures that will be given.

Are you going to amend the Municipal Act to destroy the oath, for instance, of the Municipal Act? Is it not any longer going to be necessary that an alderman gives an oath of office? You know, when he takes office on a municipal council he says and swears on oath:

"That I have not, nor will I have while holding office, any interests, directly or indirectly, in any contract or service connected with the said municipality; that I have not, by myself or any other person, knowingly employed any bribery, corruption or intimidation; that I am not disqualified from holding office; that I will faithfully perform the duties of that office…"

and that I will not ever perform my duties in such a manner that they'll put me in any kind of conflict-of-interest situation. Are we going to destroy that oath and throw it out? Mr. Chairman, each time we establish, each time we reinforce the attitude that politicians are dishonest, that government is somehow dishonest, then we create more doubt about government and government officials, both elected and appointed.

HON. MR. HALL: You've been doing it all session.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that kind of attitude….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Why don't you call the Provincial Secretary to order?

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. You have suggested that all the cabinet Members over here are liars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members on the government side not to interrupt the Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly nothing wrong in the attempts by the official opposition, or anyone else, to get the government to level with the people of British Columbia. The day they start to level with the people of British Columbia, that's the day we'll praise you for it. But until you do, we'll continue to try to get at the facts and the truth which you insist on holding from us.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we're reinforcing that kind of attitude that there is a lack of honesty among public officials. All we ask is that you go all the way. You've made only half disclosure for public employees and municipal employees. Take it a little further in this section and make the same kind of full restriction available to provincial officials as well. You know, those public employees, Mr. Chairman, have far more access to conflict-of-interest situations than any provincial elected official does, far more access. So why have you given them the benefit of the doubt and not carried it a little further?

It's a good amendment and I think the Attorney-General should have a change of heart and stand up and accept that amendment from the Conservative leader.

MR. GARDOM: I have had a discussion with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I have suggested an amendment to his amendment which I'm happy to say, in the spirit of great cooperation, he's thoroughly prepared to accept, and it would come in as his amendment. I've handed a copy of this to the Clerk. I've also handed a copy to the Hon. Attorney-General. Just for the record, I would like to read it into the record.

Essentially what it does is take out the request in the first amendment of the Member for Oak Bay for the need for an affidavit. It would read this way:

"For the purposes of section 4(l) a request shall be in writing, bear the witness' signature and address of the applicant for inspection of a file of written disclosure, and specify the reasons for the application.

"Any person in respect of whom a written disclosure is filed, may, by request to the disclosure clerk, with whom his written

[ Page 4006 ]

disclosure is filed, inspect the said request of those persons who have inspected his written disclosure."

Then carrying on as it appears in the order paper, page 22, with the additional amendment to section 4, as proposed by the member for Oak Bay, which just housekeeps the first two sections that he's proposed.

I think there is really very great value to the position that has been taken by the Member for Oak Bay. It's true the Attorney-General has said and will say that people can read these things in the daily papers, and I agree with that. And they can read them in the Gazette; I agree with that, too. They don't, of course, have to go ahead and apply for any reasons to do that.

I would say the newspapers have to apply and if there are some people in the community who, through mental or any other kind of peculiarity, as the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stated, decided to harass elected representatives or public officials, at least there will be some check and balance.

I don't think it's an unfair recommendation. With all respect, I don't think there's really need for heated debate on the part of the Attorney-General or on the part of the Members of the official opposition who responded to your debate.

I think we had a very genuine representation by the Member for Oak Bay. I think it's solidly backed in fact and in reason. On the basis of it, as the suggested amendment which he is moving….

Are you accepting this as an amendment?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Therefore, this is now the Member for Oak Bay's amended amendment. Let's call it that, Mr. Chairman; he's accepted it as such.

I would thoroughly support it and I think there's good reason to support that, Mr. Attorney-General. You're doing a better job for all elected representatives, for all public officials and municipal officers in the province if you do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just one other short word. People harassing other people is a valid point, but I think the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) made this point: doesn't the revelation of your basic holdings relieve publicly-elected people from a lot of unjustified suspicion and harassment?

This session people have said that people have been trading inside on companies. I won't even mention Dunhill. Can-Cel I did mention. I think, from my own point of view, if I file a disclosure statement showing I've had no connection with those companies, that is a little example of where you relieve suspicion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may be a bad example. Maybe it is. But I don't think it leads to harassment; I think it leads to clearing the air. I think the effect of the amendment, well intentioned as it is by the Hon. Member, would be to draw the blinds down by discouraging people and putting obstacles in the way of seeing public documents. I don't think it is necessary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I feel the whole purpose of making this deal public, as I've said before, is to keep independent businessmen out of politics. By having their assets published and available to anyone in the community without even….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking about yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I'm not speaking for myself, Mr. Chairman; I'm speaking for the people in the future who will stay out of politics because of this bill.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that we are dealing with the amendment in the name of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) which deals with the procedure for access to these documents.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's exactly what I am talking about. There should be procedure, a means whereby this is not available to anyone who wants it. That's exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Chairman.

We are talking about opening up your assets to the public while at the same time the government continues day after day to hide their dealings, which are the public's business, from the public. I mention the Gottesman contract where there were allegations of misdealings. I mention appraisals on the Dunhill property.

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with the amendment to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: It certainly has something to do with the amendment.

Interjections.

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

[ Page 4007 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) wanted to talk. He's yapping over there. I thought maybe he wanted to say something, When we ask for this information, even with a signed affidavit and in this Legislature, we can't get the information we want. The government goes around buying property and we don't know what we are paying for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is moving away from the point of the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Look, Mr. Chairman, I am pointing out why there should be a method where this information is not available to everyone. I'm merely pointing out that the government wants to have every person who runs for elected office make their assets and their dealings available to everybody without any cause. I'm drawing a parallel where, by the same token, the government hides its dealings under the table and won't make them available to the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point the Hon. Member is making is not relevant to this section. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's very relevant, Mr. Chairman. The whole purpose of this Act is to keep people in business out of politics. You don't want them in politics; you don't want their experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're voting for a bill like that?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm voting for the principle of disclosure.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say "kept secret." Don't twist the facts around, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). It's not going to be kept secret. If a person who has just cause to look at it can see it, that is not keeping it secret.

You've got two standards over there: one for your own socialist, doctrinaire government….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the amendment? Would the Hon. Members not interrupt the person who has the floor?

MR. PHILLIPS: If you really wanted to stop conflict of interest you would bring in conflict-of-interest legislation. But the Attorney-General put the whole thing out when he said the whole purpose of this bill is disclosure to make public not really your business holdings but your land holdings.

As I said during debate on Bill 42, the government intends to take over all of the land in British Columbia. I still stand by that statement. This is just one more move in that direction.

It was mentioned that if this information is available to everyone, it is certainly available to teenage children. Today we have teenage children who can break and enter, the next day go on probation and the next night go out and do the same thing. They are protected by the socialist government. If some of these teenage children, by some way or another, take out a personal vendetta….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Point of order…. In the course of being out of order. Nevertheless, the Member did say that this government protects children who break and enter and then go out and do the same thing again. I think the Hon. Member should withdraw that.

HON. MR. HALL: He doesn't know what he is saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that the government tolerates or allows illegal action on the part of the young.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw my statement but I won't withdraw that the government tolerates and allows it, Mr. Chairman. No way will I withdraw it because the government does tolerate and allow it.

HON. MR. HALL: I ask you to take the Member's words down and call the Speaker and report those words to the Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You say we tolerate and allow breaking and entering, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: You're tolerating and allowing it, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The words are that the government is accused of "tolerating and allowing breaking and entering by teenagers."

Before we proceed with the request of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), I would ask the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to stand in his place and to withdraw unconditionally any imputation that there is any improper action on the part of the government in the words that he stated, namely tolerating or allowing teenagers to break and

[ Page 4008 ]

enter in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw unconditionally, Mr. Chairman. But you know as well as I know what is happening today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did withdraw. I withdrew unconditionally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair! Don't be so bloody politically biased.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will accept the fact that the Hon. Member has withdrawn unconditionally. Would the Hon. Member proceed with the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: This information will be available to these teenage children, some of whom are breaking and entering one night, going out on probation the next day, and turning around the next night and doing the same thing. It is being tolerated.

AN HON. MEMBER: By whom?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is being tolerated by the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation that the government is tolerating criminal action on the part of teenagers. The Hon. Member stated that he unconditionally withdrew and then proceeded to make the same remark again.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw that it is being tolerated by the government. It is certainly being tolerated by the system, Mr. Chairman. It's happening so it is being tolerated by somebody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you would quit interrupting me, I'm making my whole point. If one of these teenagers has a personal vendetta against some elected official — and he may not know all of the holdings of that elected official — he can certainly go and, according to this Act without this amendment, get this information and carry on and destroy the property because he now has full disclosure of exactly what it is without any cause.

It doesn't say that a criminal can't get this information. It doesn't say that a teenager who is on probation can't get this information. Anybody can get it. This could very well happen because we are allowing teenagers today in this society to run around in this manner.

I definitely support the Member for Oak Bay's amendment, that there should be some necessity, some reason for the person who wants this information, to get it.

What really frightens me, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Attorney-General won't accept this bill, is the Attorney-General's attitude toward this bill and toward all legislation. It was a despicable display he put on in this House the other day.

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

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. And you probably were.

As I say again, I'm not speaking for myself; I'm certainly not afraid to make any disclosure. But if this information is available to anybody without cause, I'm telling you right here and now, Mr. Chairman, we're going to be in deep trouble. The reason we're going to be in deep trouble is because there will be no businessmen with any business experience entering politics from now on to run the big business of government and to lend their experience to running the finances of the taxpayers.

That really is what this bill is all about in the first place. It's not a conflict-of-interest bill with any teeth whatsoever in it. It's simply to get people to disclose and make public all the land that they hold. That's the real intent and purpose of the bill. And this amendment, if the government were really sincere in what they are doing, and were interested in not keeping people out of politics, then they would accept this amendment.

But this bill, along with all of the other legislation this government tables….

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've finished what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman.

But I want to leave this last comment, and I'll say it once again. The real intent of this bill, as it now stands without the amendment, is to keep business people out of politics.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'd like to speak against the amendment because I believe the intent of the bill is to get good people in politics, and I believe this bill would help do that.

I think we have to examine what's really being said here. Should the disclosures be made public or should

[ Page 4009 ]

they be held in secret and only made public under certain circumstances? What they are really saying is that if possibly a good investigative reporter happens to stumble across something that may appear to be in conflict of interest with an elected official, then you go to the secretly-held envelope and look in it to see if there has been a conflict of interest.

Or if an elected official happens to stumble across one of his colleagues doing something that he feels may be in conflict of interest, and the public will only find out if that happens, then you go the secret envelope.

I don't think that's good enough, Mr. Chairman. The people have a right to know exactly where you stand at all times. They shouldn't have to go through a whole rigmarole of procedures to find out exactly what you represent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Signing your name — is that a whole rigmarole? Signing your name?

HON. MR. LEA: For instance, two bills that are going through this legislative session now — one, the rental stabilization Act…. So you get all the elected officials from around the province commenting on the Acts that go through this House. I feel that if an elected official of a regional district or municipality, or anyone in this House, has something to say, people should know exactly where they stand.

For instance, if an alderman in one of the communities in the province happens to own vast holdings of rental units, and he comments either for or against the bill that's going through the House, the people have a right to know where that person stands.

MR. WALLACE: If he feels that, he should show reason.

HON. MR. LEA: The reason is that he's making a comment and people have a right to know exactly what that person represents in his commercial interests. They have a right to know without having to go through a rigmarole. Everybody should know.

Bill 31 — shouldn't everyone have a right to know where an elected official stands in terms of what he owns in mining interests if he makes a statement around Bill 31? Of course they should know, and they should know automatically.

MR. WALLACE: Not automatically.

HON. MR. LEA: Automatically.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why not?

HON. MR. LEA: Why not is exactly right, Mr. Attorney-General. Why not? If we're going to have an open society and an open government, an open democracy, then people have a right to know what we have as elected officials. They have a right to know where we stand, who we represent and why.

That is why I oppose this amendment.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot associate myself with some of the remarks which have been made in support of the amended amendment because I think, indeed, a couple of speakers strayed from the point. I would be less than honest with myself if I did not make that clear.

I feel that the Attorney-General is happy to miss the point of the amended amendment; that he cannot see precisely what has been stated by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and others who have attempted to explain it to him — that there should be some onus on the individual who inquires of the holdings of an elected person; some onus to avoid rumour-mongering, to avoid maliciousness, or to avoid simply a curiosity with respect to what in individual has or may not have.

I think at this point perhaps the Member for Oak Bay and I differ slightly. I think that the press, and I use it in its broad context, its broad sense, would be able to fully state their reason for publishing the holdings of elected officials. Obviously, not every Member of a municipal council's holdings in British Columbia would appear in every newspaper. Not every school trustee's holdings would appear in every newspaper or be dealt with at length in the other media, the electronic media.

But when an individual in a particular community seeks out information with respect to an elected official, then he or she should be at least prepared to put his or her name on the line indicating that I, Joe Smith, want to know what Pete Brown holds in this municipality. It is as simple as that. All the….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Supposing they read it in the B.C. Gazette?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I have to ask then, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Attorney-General, how many people do read the B.C. Gazette? What is its circulation? The Minister raised it, Mr. Chairman. I did not. The B.C. Gazette is not the hottest selling item in British Columbia, let's face it.

But there should be a degree of responsibility placed upon the individual who is making a specific inquiry about an elected individual.

All the interjections and comments and quips from the other side with respect to "why didn't you vote against the bill?" — I support disclosure. How many times do I have to say it, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General? I support it. I supported it when you introduced it. I support it now!

[ Page 4010 ]

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: Of course I am supporting now. But there is no suggestion of secrecy, Mr. Chairman, none whatsoever. The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) insists on distorting that point. No suggestion of secrecy, but of responsibility on the part of the individual making the inquiry. And that Member knows precisely the point that I'm trying to make. He knows the point I'm trying to make.

I am not opposed to disclosure in any way, shape or form. But there should be the requirement for the individual who wants to go for a particular individual in public office, then he should be prepared for his or her name on the line. And it is indeed as simple as that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you support the affidavit?

MR. CURTIS: I have been speaking on the amended amendment, which does not….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: No, you've not read the amendment, the altered amendment. Correct, Mr. Attorney-General? The Attorney-General nods his head, correct. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just make a final few comments on the amended amendment.

The Attorney-General should know, and I just repeat what the amended amendment says:

"For the purposes of section 4(l ) a request shall be in writing bearing the witnessed signature and address of the applicant for inspection of a filed written disclosure and specifying the reasons for the application."

I won't repeat the second part. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) read it; it just continues to leave out the word affidavit.

The Attorney-General made a point, in replying earlier in this debate, of the legalized nature of an affidavit and that it brought the whole thing into much more of an adversary focus, and I discussed that with the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I thought that the Attorney-General's observation was a valid one.

So, all we are asking in the amended amendment is that the person just sign their name and address….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And give reasons.

MR. WALLACE: And give reasons.

The point that I was trying to make and certainly…. I noticed the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has left before I had a chance to comment on his remarks, as I will do in a moment.

I tried to make the point clear, Mr. Chairman, that in giving reasons the reasons are not subject to any predetermined qualifications as to number or size or personality or otherwise. It's simply to give a reason.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), for example, said that we're debating Bill 31 and every citizen in British Columbia has the right to know what the Member for Oak Bay does or does not hold in the way of mining stock. I agree. I agree entirely. But to suggest that there is anything secret or any rigmarole, which was the word he used…. I think the rigmarole, would involve signing your name and saying: "Because the Member for Oak Bay is debating Bill 31 I believe I'm entitled to know his holdings." Exactly. I couldn't emphasize that more strongly. But all the person has to do, in my view, by this amended amendment is just put his name to a request that he thinks it's right that because I am debating that bill and trying to influence its passage or otherwise through this House he should know whether or not I have any holdings in mind.

I think that his observation is absolutely valid, except that he used the words that the disclosure document is going to be kept secret and there would be a whole rigmarole by the citizens to find out. Now I don't know how you define the words "whole rigmarole," Mr. Chairman, but in this amended amendment we've taken out the word "affidavit," which certainly implies a measure of complexity. But a written request signed with the reason seems to me to be asking very little indeed of the individual who, whether the Minister admits it or not, is doing so for one of two motives. He has a genuine motive in that he thinks that I might be trying to favour my own financial assets by either opposing or favouring Bill 31, or any other bill for that matter. Or if he doesn't have that basic genuine motive then the other motive is simply one of curiosity.

The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, and I've obviously failed, is that the degree to which we sacrifice our privacy in my view should not be justified solely on the basis of the curiosity of an individual in society. I just say that if that's the philosophy of the government, then in their good intentions of supporting the principle of disclosure they have let the pendulum swing much too far. Surely there should be a reasonable balance in society.

As the Highways Minister pointed out in the example he chose, certainly everybody in British Columbia who wants to know my mineral holdings — which I may say at this point are nil — is entitled to know what mineral holdings I hold or any Member holds. All I'm saying is that because that is an absolutely valid attitude by the citizens they should certainly have only the minimal obstruction, if that's

[ Page 4011 ]

the word the Minister wants to use — not secrecy, but the minimal obstruction of simply signing their name and saying why they want disclosure.

I think it's unfortunate also, and I'd like to have the chance, Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the amended amendment, to correct what the Attorney-General said in his response, which was that I am opposing the principle of this bill if I try to bring in such an amendment. With respect, I am admitting, I am stating, and repeating very clearly that it is a question not of the principle of disclosure per se but the degree to which this section unnecessarily invades the privacy of an elected individual. To be concerned about section 4 or to try to bring in this amendment, certainly, I think, shows that all we're trying to do is give a fair measure of justice and consideration to the individual who indeed is sacrificing some of his privacy by serving in public office.

As I said during second reading, this bill actually may well be challenged in court as to being unconstitutional in terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which in paragraph 1 guarantees equality of treatment to every citizen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Similar to what was upheld by the United States Supreme Court….

MR. WALLACE: We're living in Canada, Mr. Attorney-General; we're not living in the United States.

I made the point in second reading that this aspect of the Canadian Bill of Rights gave me a great deal of thought and concern when I was deciding how I should vote on this debate. I made the decision that the loss of the rights which the elected individual is suffering in this bill is something that I'm prepared to accept.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Was it a caucus decision?

MR. WALLACE: Well, we consider that this is such an important bill that it's a free vote and should, in fact, be a free vote for every party in this House.

It is one of these issues where it is important enough in terms of its relationship to individual rights and freedoms that the whole question of partisan party politics doesn't matter a hoot to me in this particular bill. I think each person should vote as he sees fit and I would hope that each member in the government votes particularly on this amendment in that regard. I think it's a minimal request we are making to restore a fair measure of justice to the elected officials and individuals. I certainly hope the Minister would reconsider the amended amendment where the word "affidavit" is not included — simply "a written request with a reason."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-13

NAYS — 33

MR. WALLACE: I would ask you to report the division on the amendment to the Speaker, Mr. Chairman.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to section 6. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to section 7. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to section 8. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

[ Page 4012 ]

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to section 9. (See appendix.)

On the amendments.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on section 9 as amended ….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has an amendment; and usually we take the amendment first.

MR. GARDOM: Is that satisfactory with you? Okay.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: He's a nice fellow — more than I can say for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: I shall indeed, Mr. Chairman; it's a pleasure to address you today, indeed it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you need your lunch.

MR. GARDOM: I just had a lunch break, and it wasn't as pleasantly fortified as my breakfast break, unfortunately. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move as an amendment to section 9 — if I could just find my Act here — the amendment which I've handed in to the table — to add in the first one after the word "application," the words: "with the consent of the Attorney-General." So section 9, as the Attorney-General has now amended it, would read: "9 (1) Where the Supreme Court, upon application, with consent of the Attorney-General, is of the opinion that a provincial official, municipal official, or public employee…" or municipal employee or municipal employees, and so forth and so on. Now the purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to lessen the opportunity for mischievous and frivolous applications which, although perhaps baseless in fact, could prove to be unnecessarily expensive and unnecessarily harmful to the individuals involved. These proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature and they could be very, very unfairly initiated and without foundation by any of those unfortunate people who might have possessed improper motives.

I've also put in an amendment to add as subsection (5) to the bill these words: "The cost of an application under this section shall follow the event."

Now that essentially is a codification of the law as it now prevails. But I think it's a very wise thing to have that built into this section. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the two proposals, the two amendments, that I have proposed to this subsection would at least be some deterrent to those kinds of actions that I've been talking about by those people who may possess improper motives.

The first one would put a responsibility upon the office of the Attorney-General which is not a new or different responsibility at all, but which is one that is part and parcel of the very high function and high responsibility of that office which has to be, and has been, exercised scrupulously.

We all know that the office of the Attorney-General is one different and traditionally different than any other office in government. He is the chief law-enforcement officer, and he has to enforce the law without fear or favour or partiality. I would move these two amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have put these amendments separately. Is that agreed?

MR. GARDOM: That is satisfactory with me, yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the first amendment, there is no intention on my part or the government's part that anybody should be inhibited from taking what, with respect, I think is a civil proceeding to recover the damages. Nevertheless, as the Member points out, it might be frivolous, groundless or harassing in nature without any substance to it at all. On that basis I think that something of that kind could be examined in a preliminary way by the officers in my department. If the person has a prima facie case at all, it should be allowed to go ahead. But I accept the amendment, and I appreciate the Hon. Member bringing this point up.

First amendment approved.

On the second amendment to section 9.

MR. GARDOM: I have no intention of reiterating that which I've already stated. But, Mr. Attorney-General, it is a codification of the law as is now practised in the Province of British Columbia that costs normally follow the event. However, there are discretions open to the court. I would say that in a statute such as this costs should follow the event.

If there is a successful application against a public official, public employee or municipal employee, they bear the costs of those proceedings. They've got

[ Page 4013 ]

to appreciate that fact. If the application is unsuccessful, that unsuccessful applicant has got to appreciate the fact clearly, without any question of a doubt, that he too, or she too, will have to bear the costs of bringing such an application. This is just fairness — both sides of the coin.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as the Hon. Member says, it's basically codification of existing law. The rules of the court provide that costs follow the event, except in a very exceptional case. That exceptional case might be a case under this section. I don't know the circumstances. Maybe the person involved was partially guilty of delaying the case, harassing, giving false information, making it difficult.

Anyway, I think that thing should be left to the judge. The ordinary rules of court provide that somebody can very well be mocked in court in costs if they bring a groundless suit of this nature. So I think that it's already covered, and I'm not disposed to accept the amendment.

Second amendment to section 9 negatived.

On section 9 as amended.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the Attorney-General will correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that this is an almost meaningless section because it doesn't really provide for any penalties for any person who is convicted of having a conflict of interest and making some kind of financial gain.

All it does in the Act is provide for that person to pay back any money that he might have made out of his conflict-of-interest position. That doesn't seem to me to be very much protection for the taxpayers. I'd just like to say that there should be some…. You know, if a bank robber was in that position, he'd be very happy. He could just go out and rob a bank; if he got caught he would pay back the money, go back and wait for his next opportunity.

But under this bill there isn't that penalty provision.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, constitutionally that's under the Criminal Code, creating a criminal offence in this field. It is pretty well covered in the Criminal Code in various sections. Here we are allowing a supplemental civil action where the money can be recovered. That is within our jurisdiction. The other isn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Attorney-General could explain what would happen, for instance, to that person's position as an alderman or as a school trustee. There is no provision for him to be removed from that office.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in the Municipal Act.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I beg to differ with the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, because I've checked the Municipal Act pretty carefully, and it does call for removal of anyone who has been convicted of an indictable offence. But the lawyers I've spoken to in this House don't seem to think that this section constitutes that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This section doesn't do it, that's for sure.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, then nothing does, Mr. Chairman. Nothing does.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we should look at the other penal things that require an office on certain occasions to be vacated by an elected person. At the moment they fall under our standing orders in the Constitution Act and the Municipal Act and various places. I'd be prepared to give attention to that. It's not this bill that should handle that kind of thing in my opinion. This is a disclosure bill and a civil bill. But those things should be looked at.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to say again, Mr. Chairman, that I think the provisions for penalties and certainly the provisions for removal of office for a person who is…. It may not go so far as being convicted under any provisions of the Criminal Code but there still may be enough evidence of a conflict of interest that that person should be removed from office. I think those kind of penalties should be under this bill and no other bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General and to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), section 8 provides the $10,000 fine.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if 9 becomes operative then there has already been a breach of 8. You are liable to a $10,000 fine as well as the obligation to repay the money.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with respect, all that section 8 does is make that fine available for failing to file, not for being convicted of a conflict-of-interest situation.

Section 9 as amended approved.

[ Page 4014 ]

On section 10.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with one or two minor amendments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, take that back!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take that back.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85, Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, when shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now, Mr. Speaker — in view of the fact that the bill has been printed. But if any Hon. Member wants it reported tomorrow that's fine with me.

Leave granted.

Bill 85 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 47

NAYS — 1

AN HON. MEMBER: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 153, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPRETATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 153; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General would indicate to us what a "private Act" is. It seems to be unknown in any legislation in this province and there is no definition for it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Such as the incorporation as a railway company or something like that. Nothing to do with consenting adults.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, no, now there is no definition in this Interpretation Act of a "private Act." It doesn't appear in any of our legislation. It seems strange that the Interpretation Act itself would not clearly indicate what is meant by a "private Act." You are using the words but you don't define them.

Sections 6 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

MR. CHABOT: On section 41, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the Attorney-General could tell us when he intends passing orders-in-council enacting the various sections of this bill. Is he going to enact the entire bill or bits and pieces? When does he expect to take action to implement these? If he is going to hold any of these sections back, I was

[ Page 4015 ]

wondering which he would be holding back and for what reason.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have no intention to hold any back at this time. I haven't heard of a problem section that would require holding back. Nevertheless, it'll be vetted for a week to two weeks and then probably the whole thing — I can't commit myself — will be enacted.

Section 41 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 153, Interpretation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 141, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 141; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move the amendments standing in my name on the order panel. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This section places severe limitations on the contractual rights of the strata corporation and provides also that the strata corporation, having entered into a contract for the control, management, and administration of the common property of the corporation, may cancel that contract on three months' notice. It also gives a similar right to the contracting party. I would be interested if the Minister could indicate the rationale for the rather severe limitation.

It seems to me that if the strata corporation is a function for the benefit of its members, its contracts should be enforceable for their full term. This could leave the strata corporation in a situation where not the strata corporation but the other contracting party can opt out at any time. This may leave all of the members of the strata corporation in a difficult, sometimes embarrassing position because it will interfere in a significant way with the control, management and administration. Those three matters are of the utmost importance to the members of the strata corporation.

Why are we placing in this legislation that unusual right'?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This section is affecting the rights of the strata corporation in the control and the management of common facilities and assets. Is the Member objecting to part A of this or part B?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Both.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, is it understood that the strata Corporation is the collective ownership of the strata-title lots and condominiums? It might be useful if you were to go over your objection. I'm not quite certain as to what you're objecting to.

[ Page 4016 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, a second time and carefully, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the Strata corporation is empowered to enter into contracts with management groups with respect to many matters, but specifically in respect of the control, the management and the administration of the common property. That's not the individual suite in a condominium but all those common facilities which are available to all the members of the strata corporation.

Having entered into such a contract for the control, management and administration of common facilities, two things can happen. One, it may be cancelled by the strata corporation. That takes a special resolution and it means that at least three-quarters of all the members must be in favour of that.

But it can also be cancelled by the management group on three months' notice. That leaves the strata corporation individuals without contracts for the control, management and administration of that unit, whatever it may be. It may be bigger than just a single condominium unit. It seems to me that the strata corporation shouldn't be placed in that situation which could be embarrassing, indeed, dangerous, for it immediately thrusts upon them the obligation to go out and get some other management organization with which to carry out those responsibilities.

The Act also provides that such termination could be done without liability. I'm just asking the Minister why this unusual step is being taken. If the corporation is under contract for a one-year period, then it seems to me that obligation should be carried out on both sides.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The difficulty arises sometimes as a result of contracts that have been entered into in the early stages or even during the stage where the owner-developer might pass on a management contract during the selling stage of the new strata corporation. People have been saddled with rather unfair management contracts, perhaps even sweetheart deals.

On the other hand, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to put in this three months' option — which I think is a reasonable length of time — it is reasonable that we also allow the management group the same leeway so that we're not legislating in favour of one group or the other.

Our original intention is the protection of the strata corporation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I could understand that response if you were talking about the first management contract. But this applies throughout the life of the strata corporation. As I say, it leaves the corporation in a very difficult position. Quite frankly, the Minister's answer doesn't convince me that this matter has been properly considered.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

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

[ Page 4017 ]

Amendments approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Sections 27 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

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

Amendments approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Sections 40 to 49 inclusive approved.

On section 50.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

On section 51.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 51 as amended approved.

On section 52.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Section 53 approved.

On section 54.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, section 54 begins the problems that are faced with leasehold strata plans when the original lease comes to an end. You have a lease terminated but you have a building situate upon the lease which is owned by the strata corporation. This and subsequent sections deal with what happens in that case.

The Crown is given a right to purchase the interest as of the date of termination or of the non-renewal of the lease. I wonder if the Minister could indicate — I know I am transgressing perhaps with respect to subsequent sections, but it can only be discussed in that way — what it is that the Crown has in mind with respect to this right of purchase.

I must, perforce, make representation to section 60 which indicates that upon termination of the lease the buildings are deemed to be destroyed. I am assuming that if they are deemed to be destroyed then they have questionable value. That brings you back to section 54. For the life of me, if the Crown will exercise the right of going to the strata corporation and saying they are going to exercise their rights to purchase from the strata corporation all of the interest and they are going to deem that the improvements on the leased lands have been destroyed, then it seems to me that those people who have been owners under the strata plan concept are going to suffer a significant loss.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The concept of being deemed to be destroyed would refer mostly to the event of fire or some other type of unusual damage that would be insurable. At that point in time it might be necessary for the Crown to assume ownership and control of the land once again. We have provided for a buy-out provision of the improvements at the end of a 50-year lease period. This is written into the legislation. It provides for notification five years prior to the end. I am straying a little bit from the particular section. I think that this is even unusual as compared with other leaseholds in which there is normally reversion to the owner at the end of the lease.

I think the provisions of this are eminently fair and reasonable. It was not intended to use the "deeming to be destroyed" as a means of avoiding payment at the conclusion of a lease. This is a term which we understand to mean some unusual damage such as fire damage. This term runs throughout the Act but it would require compensation on the basis of what the owners had at that time.

Sections 54 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

[ Page 4018 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his explanation of section 54. I would, however, draw his attention specifically to section 60, which indicates that upon the termination of the lease or upon termination of any renewal of the lease the buildings are deemed to be destroyed. It has nothing to do with actual destruction at all. While I accept the Minister's explanation on this before, I draw to his attention that this "deemed destruction" section is included. I just don't understand the reason for that if section 54 is to work as the Minister indicates.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This "deemed to be destroyed" fits in with earlier provisions in which we have separated the formula for sharing common costs, the formula for voting rights and the formula for distributing assets should the assets be "deemed to be destroyed." In case of a fire you need a different formula to distribute the proceeds of an insurance benefit related to the actual market values of the improvements rather than related to the share which you would get from common expenses. The share for common expenses is on the basis of square footage pretty well, but in this case it would be related to market value.

Sections 60 to 65 inclusive approved.

On section 66.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 66 as amended approved.

Section 67 approved.

On first schedule.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

First schedule as amended approved.

Second to fourth schedules inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 141, Strata Titles Act reported complete with amendments and considered to be reported at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 117, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 117; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, on second reading I drew to the attention of the Minister the very arbitrary powers given under this revised section, a revision to what was formerly, I think, section 26 of the Forest Act. The Minister said at that time that some amendment was being considered and some kind of check on the power set out here. What I'm wondering is when he proposes to introduce those amendments. Or should we discuss it at some length right now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I think I also indicated that we are reviewing the section. I also indicated, Mr. Chairman, that it was not the intent to use this section in a harsh manner. Upon review and in view of the fact that we have been able to work out quite a good relationship with the industry in this regard, we feel that the section, as it stands, would be satisfactory to all concerned.

MR. GIBSON: In that case I just have to go on record against that. I will say why.

"Where the licensee is not complying with the provision of this Act, the regulations, his licence or his permit…the Minister may, by order, cancel or suspend the licence and the right to apply for another licence, subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister considers appropriate."

There are no checks and balances on that.

In the existing Act first of all the Minister has to give 30 days' notice in writing of his intention to stop the particular practice. I sympathize with the Minister's comment the other day that that is a long time. It might be necessary to stop the practice much more quickly. I agree with that. But under the proposed amendment he doesn't have to give any notice at all.

Secondly, the licensee has a chance to comply with the amending order that the Minister might issue.

[ Page 4019 ]

Then if there is still a difference of opinion there is provision for appeal to the supreme court and even after that to the court of appeal. In other words, there is a regular chain of action that has to take place before a licence can be cancelled. It can't be cancelled in an arbitrary manner.

Presumably, this regulated chain of actions would ensure that the licence would not in any way be cancelled for minor cause or at the complete whim of the Minister if, for example, a company wasn't behaving in some of its policies in a way satisfactory to him. It might be acting entirely within its rights but it simply might not be toeing the government line as closely as the Minister would like him to do.

So I say that there absolutely has to be some kind of check and balance on the Minister — not even necessarily talking about this Minister, but some other Minister down the line. I think it's very, very important and I wish that the Minister would think this over again and agree that before the end of this session he will introduce amendments to curb this power.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, in looking over this particular section it does indicate to me that the Minister is taking very wide additional powers, discretionary powers unto himself. For that reason I think we have justification in querying the Minister on what his policy happens to be.

I'd like some explanation from the Minister with respect to section 9 (a) and (b) where the Minister for the purposes of this section requires a licensee to build a primary access road on a licence area and where he so requires he may "compensate the licensee in whole or in part for the cost of the road as determined by the Minister."

Then you go on into section (b) and indicate that you may offset stumpage or pay compensation under clause (b), "shall be subject to section 147 and shall be deemed to be vested free and clear of all encumbrances in the right of the Crown of the province."

There is a provision that the government may appropriate funds themselves to build roads if they don't give an offset against stumpage to a company.

So what I would like to know is if that second option is exercised by the Crown where the Crown actually goes in and provides from general revenue some of the funds that are required to build a road, will there be a requirement that the road be built under a union contract or by union operators? Or in what respect will the fair employment Act govern the actions of the government in case they decide to build the road at their discretion, rather than have it done by a private company that has the timber lease?

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd also like to know why there is no appeal, because the discretion is entirely at the hands of the Minister and his staff. It would seem fair that in a situation like this you should provide for an appeal against any rule or regulation that you may have in mind. Would the Minister care to comment on that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, beyond the statements I have already made, Mr. Chairman, I would make the point that these powers do prevail and have in the legislation with respect to the other forms of tenure. So that, for example, with the timber sale harvesting licence which is a fairly long-term tenure the same kind of powers exist and in fact there hasn't been the kind of process as with a tree farm licence.

It has worked out, I think generally to mutual satisfaction. That is between the Crown and the industry.

Insofar as the road question the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) raises, yes, the Public Service Fair Employment Act, if I remember the title of that legislation correctly, would apply directly to works by the Crown. However, with respect to the private companies, that does not prevail.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this point. But I want to make it very clear that I oppose this section and I want to spell it out just a little bit further for the Minister because this is a huge industry with enormous sums of money involved and one of these days there's going to be a Minister that's going to be a little bit tempted by this kind of power.

I'm clearly not talking about this Minister. But one of these days there is going to be a Minister pick up the telephone and say: "There is a collector coming around to this or that forest company and remember section 9."

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you get worse than this guy? In your opinion?

MR. GIBSON: In this particular aspect we're talking about I'd say so.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Who knows?

MR. GIBSON: As a matter of fact, you may remember, Mr. Minister, the major political scandal in this province in the last 20 years came about from the exercise of discretion in this very department with regard to the tree farm licences.

Some day a Minister could say "I've got a friend who I'd like hired and you'd better remember section 9." Or they could say, "I don't like the

[ Page 4020 ]

speeches that you've been making as head of corporation X. It disagrees with government policy. We want you to stop — remember section 9." I don't think you have to draw any more pictures than that. It's obvious the tremendous power it gives. The fact that these kind of powers may be in pulp harvesting licences doesn't interest me one little bit. They shouldn't be there either. The regular procedures of appeal that apply in the existing section 26 should be continued and I propose to vote against this section.

MR. SMITH: The point that has just been made by the Member who has just taken his place can't be emphasized too strongly because the power is there. It's a very discretionary power. It's not subject to appeal as was the case in the old Act so that the Minister may make orders or suspend licences — which I would presume would place the company who had that licence in a position of losing a lot of their timber. The Minister really doesn't have to give just cause under the provisions of this Act to do that.

He also has power to designate recreational areas in TFLs in the province and any form of tenure that he requires or decides to designate a recreational area in. It may be for the purposes of removing that timber from the allowable cut of one of the persons or one of the companies which does have the right to cut timber there.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There are still very tight limits on tracts, however.

MR. SMITH: So the Minister can use wide discretionary power at his option. The companies have to abide by it and they have no appeal. I agree with the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) that section 9 as amended allows too much power in the hands of the Crown and we will vote against this section.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you report to the Speaker that a division took place in committee, and ask leave to have it recorded.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this is, as I understand it, a repeal of a provision in the old Act that allowed for a reduction in the amount of royalty paid to the Crown where the company was involved in taking out and removing fire kill timber. It would seem to me that that's a fair method of appraising fire kill timber, that there should be a reduction in the fees. Because it is difficult to handle. And it certainly requires a lot more work by the company that may be involved in that situation.

I would like the Minister to explain why he has repealed this section and if there will in the future be a reduction in the fees that the Crown collects for the companies that may be involved in harvesting fire kill timber, and what method he would use.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the difficult factors would be taken into account in the appraisal itself. It's just that it would not be an arbitrary figure; such as a 55 cent amount. So that all these factors would be recognized and it would be recognized as a high-cost operation, which would mean a low return to the Crown.

MR. SMITH: You would be prepared then to give some consideration to the fact that they were in fire kill…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Without a doubt, yes.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 16 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. SMITH: Section 23 apparently brings veneer into the section where it was not included before. I'd like to know why this was done, particularly when you consider the fact that in British Columbia we're a net importer of veneer products. We import about $12 million, export about $6 million, so there's a difference of about $6 million there.

[ Page 4021 ]

We're not an exporter, we're a net importer. Does the Minister feel that with that position as it is today, inclusion of veneer in this particular section of the Act will in some way be detrimental to our particular situation as it exists now, with regard to the market that we have to supply?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we feel that the authority is justified simply in terms of being free to take action to see to it that there might well be further production in the province, or further more refined products, and veneer is a fairly low scale of production. Nevertheless we recognize the imbalance in trade between Canada and the United States, at least in this area, and it would be only with very careful analysis that steps might be taken with respect to specific operations.

We don't anticipate anything in the immediate future.

Section 23 approved.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. SMITH: Yes, this is section 25 (a). I'll read out the section: "by striking out the words, 'With every municipality' within the first line and substituting the words, 'the lands within the jurisdiction of every municipality, local government body and local public organization.'"

Would the Minister define what he has in mind by the phrase, "local public organization"? It seems a very loose term and it could include almost anyone, including people who have nothing more than a passing interest in the forest industry and bring them into a position of really putting impulse upon companies operating in the woods that would be more of a nuisance value than anything else. So would the Minister define what is intended there?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are thinking in terms of improvement districts, for example, in terms of that category.

MR. SMITH: But not small organizations or clubs or this sort of thing?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, regular and quasi public administrative bodies such as improvement districts.

Section 25 approved.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. SMITH: On section 27 (c) the wording now is "As a debt due." Would the Minister define the difference, or what he has in mind with this wording as compared to the old Act?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I simply think that that clarifies the section more completely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice try.

MR. SMITH: Can you run that one by me one more time? (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We think it clarifies the section more completely, Mr. Member.

Section 27 approved.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

MR. SMITH: There is one thing here in section 32 at the end of the section: "…all debris on adjoining lands caused by construction of the line and has been removed and destroyed to the satisfaction of the forest officer." There is a question in the minds of some of the people in the forest industry as to what is really meant by "removed and destroyed to the satisfaction of the forest officer."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It would be simply dealing with the slash to the satisfaction of the local forestry officials, and that certainly seems reasonable. The problem of slash in the forests is a serious concern. This is a matter of being sure that a reasonable standard prevails both on and beside the right-of-way.

MR. SMITH: I think the Minister is as well aware as any of the rest of us that there is a problem with slash removal. Quite often if you talk to the industry today and the people operating in the woods about disposal by burning, they would run the other direction as fast as possible. They certainly don't like to get involved in that situation for fear of the fires getting away from them. I think that this is why they are very concerned about how this will be interpreted. We have had bad experiences and good.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's why it's written the way it is — that it could be burning, it could be burial or other methods of dealing with the material. That's why these "sweeping discretionary powers" are provided the forest officials.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dictators!

[ Page 4022 ]

Section 32 approved.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 35.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It deals with the non-compliance by railway companies and increases the fine from $200 to $1,000. It seems to me an extraordinarily small amount nevertheless. Are there other provisions, penal provisions, of someone who willfully flouts the Act, causes a forest fire, which would also result in other penalties involved? It could lead to enormous losses; yet the penalty seems remarkably light.

I wonder if the Minister could comment on the decision to increase it fivefold and why $1,000 appears to him to be a reasonable figure. I don't know whether it should be left as it was or increased many times more. But it just seems to be pulled out of a hat, and it doesn't seem to bear any relation to the possible damage that could be caused.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member certainly has an interesting point there that we might reflect on further in the future. But the point might also be made that where there are damages and where they are responsible, they would be responsible for the payment of the full amount of the damages at least. But $200 versus $1,000: I tend to agree with the Member that an increase is necessary, and one might well argue for a substantial increase beyond that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think one would have to.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: At this stage this is the considered opinion of our advisers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In other words, a guess.

Section 35 approved.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

MR. SMITH: There is a change of wording here. It's with respect to the disposal of slash and trash in the areas for the licences. You used to use the words "pile and burn" and now you have replaced that with "burn or otherwise dispose of." Could the Minister indicate what that means? Is there some area or some direction that the department is moving in that is covered all right by the "otherwise dispose of"? If there is a direction intended, what is that direction?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, again, it's simply to provide the flexibility. Burying is one possibility, for example. It simply opens it up. It doesn't limit the Forest Service to a single method of dealing with the problem.

MR. SMITH: Has the Minister or the people in his department done any research with respect to the cost that would be involved when you compare burning with disposal by burial or something of that nature? Have you got any figures on it, or would there be any allowances made to the companies if they were forced into a situation of going into an exceedingly costly method of disposal as compared to something else that they might have done if it had not been for the requirements of the department?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that certain general information is available, and there is no question that burning is by far the cheapest method. But a considerable amount of work is now underway, and reorganization work as well within the department, subsequent to the Salmon Arm-Eden fire. So it's a question that the Forest Service is devoting quite a bit more time to, more research to and some retraining as well.

Section 39 approved.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 41, Mr. Chairman, amends section 121 of the original Act. Section 121(b) of the original Act states that any person who fails to make available his services and the services of any man employed by him at his own expense…. It seems a little unreasonable to me at the present time, given the fact that it's an accident whether a person happens to be in the area of the forest fire or not, that he should be required at his own expense to make available everything he owns, all the people he employs, himself and whatever.

This probably goes back to the old days where we were all responsible as individuals for working a certain number of days on the roads, and you were considered to be putting in your time for the state in that way. But times have changed. We are now in a period where we pay taxes for taking care of roads, fighting forest fires, things of that nature.

This seems a holdover from the old days and an old Act. It seems unreasonable, given the present state of our society, for individuals to be responsible for very, very heavy expenses simply through the accident of being in a certain place at a certain time.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on when we are going to get a proper amendment for that particular part of this section —

[ Page 4023 ]

section 121(b) — and when we are going to have something along the lines of a person being required, of course, to assist in fighting forest fires — but that any damage that occurs or any expenses that he incurs — reasonable expenses — be paid back to the person.

I know that this is probably general practice, but certainly we should write into the legislation some indication of a person's right to have their reasonable expenses met.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's a valid point, Mr. Chairman. In fact, all these expenses are met now. So in fact they are compensated with respect to being involved. The need, of course, is for immediate action in an emergency. That's the prime concern — that is, being able to move quickly and get men and material together to deal with the emergency. In fact, we do operate in the way the Member suggests. It's something that we should keep in mind in terms of subsequent reviews of the statute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Minister, then, would accept an amendment to that effect at the present time. It's the deletion of five words, which would bring it in line with the practice of his department and which would upgrade the Act in a general manner that all these other amendments are. I could happily give him the privilege of putting in an amendment. Otherwise, I'll do it myself. But it would make sense, I think, to put that in if we're trying to upgrade this Act.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's something we might reflect on further, so I don't think I'd be prepared to accept an amendment. The point might also be made, though, that there might be instances where the person or company involved in this process of fighting the fire was, in fact, responsible for it, so the automatic question of compensation…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This takes care of….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: …wouldn't prevail.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I refer the Minister to the last answer he gave me in reply to a different question on section 39 where he said that if they were responsible for the fire, they were going to be paying damages anyway as well as the fine. So this is a different thing. Surely a small amendment, simply to prove that we're all in good humour at 3:20 in the afternoon, would be in order. It's certainly not going to do anything but to wipe out some useless, redundant words in this particular bill. I will propose it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would be pleased to carry on a correspondence with the Hon. Member and consider his suggestions at a time when we might have more leisure and could thoroughly reflect on the adequacy of the section, the statute and its changes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If, after proper reflection through the summer season, we concurred, I'd be pleased to credit the Hon. Member at a subsequent session of the Legislature when we amend that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister, in his thoughtful and considered way, really overlooks the fact that we have thoroughly canvassed this thing already. In fact, we've beaten the poor little thing to death. Now comes the time to vote on deleting these five or six words.

I'm sure he won't object if I simply pop in an amendment at this time. He can then vote for it. It's a little informal, but here it is, Mr. Chairman, signed by me, and referring to section 121(b) — that the words "at the person's own expense" be deleted. It's an amendment to section 41 of the bill in question, Bill 117. I'm sure you'll agree it's just a minor housekeeping matter.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 41 to 54 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 117, Forest Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the House's attention the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT 

(continued)

MR. GIBSON: After yesterday's few introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to return to this debate. I looked on the order paper again today for

[ Page 4024 ]

the amendments that the Minister promised us. They are still not there. It is awfully difficult, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm giving you wonderful advice, but I've given you the principal advice that the royalty be dropped and it be made a tax on profits.

It's awfully difficult, Mr. Speaker, to be debating this legislation in this fashion because at the end of it all, when it is time for the Minister to speak again, he is going to stand up and say that the argument has been very interesting up to now but it is all irrelevant because of these amendments that he is bringing in. Then he will bring in some amendments that won't really make it irrelevant, but it may seem to do that.

At the same time, we are trying to debate this bill without the advantage of designations or information from the Minister about what mineral he is going to designate. There is very little information about basic value — just the one basic value we have for copper. What other values and what other minerals are you going to designate, Mr. Minister? When you make this change in gross value, which you kind of hinted at, what is it going to look like at the other end?

It is awfully difficult to debate this bill under those circumstances.

Anyway, I hadn't meant to start out that way. I meant to start out by congratulating the Minister on what happened this morning and what happened in the House today when he spoke at the beginning. And I congratulate him on his 25 years of service. In saying that I'm only sorry that we do have just this one small difference which we have to keep talking about. I only wish there was some way we could talk about it for the next 25 years. If we could talk about it for the next 25 years, we might keep employment up in this province for that time.

Yesterday I suggested, very quickly, that there is essential agreement in this House that the return to the public from our mineral industry should be increased, and that the problem comes about in agreeing on the way to do it. The NDP have an ideological hang-up that they just have to do it by means of a royalty. That is the wrong way to do it.

I suggested next that there has been insufficient opportunity for debate, and that on a complex technical matter of this kind it really should go to committee for the hearing of testimony from the mining industry. The Minister has rejected this premise as well.

I suggested next that the relatively small direct employment figures in the industry, some 15,000, vastly understate the importance of the industry to British Columbia, because it is a primary industry and all of the service industries are built on top of it. Something like 20 British Columbians gain their livelihood from each direct mining job in the province.

I suggested some other importance to British Columbia in terms of regional development. I'm going to talk a bit about northern development today and about the building up of our transportation infrastructure.

I said a few things about the nature of the industry, pointing out that while it is large for British Columbia, it is quite small in world terms and that the rest of the world doesn't have to have our minerals. They can pass us by if we are foolish enough to make it possible for them to do so in terms of costs.

I spoke about exploration being basic to the industry, and the fact that exploration has now virtually disappeared in British Columbia. The figures that have been provided by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines sustain that.

I spoke about the role of prospectors in exploration — the men who have discovered almost all of the major mines developed in the last 10 years and the incentives that are necessary for them to get out and do their job. If they don't get out and do that job, I spoke of the absolute impossibility of the government taking over the exploration work.

You might have in the back of your mind, Mr. Minister, the idea that if exploration stops, the government can step in and get out there and find those minerals. The minerals, you say, aren't lost. But, Mr. Minister, it won't work. Governments are built for security — not for efficiency. They are not built for taking risks. When you get out into the exploration business you're taking risks. You're in a high-risk business. That's not the kind of thing that civil servants can do.

In addition I spoke about the profits and rates of return in the industry. I agreed with the concept that in times of excess profits there should be excess-profits tax. I shouldn't say I agreed with that because the Minister doesn't agree with it; he wants to take the royalty route. I described the average rate of return in the mining industry in British Columbia, which is about the same as the national leader of the New Democratic Party says is right for the resource industry.

Then, dealing more specifically with Bill 31, I talked about discretion and started to talk about the impact of royalties, in a theoretical sense, on mines in the province. I want to continue that discussion today and to show that it is not just a theory, and go on with a few case examples that are already apparent, talk a little bit about the impact on processing, talk a little bit about the NDP dogma that is apparently the underpinning for this whole system, and finally go into some detail on what an alternative proposal should look like.

The fundamental point about a royalty, Mr.

[ Page 4025 ]

Speaker, is that it is the opposite of conservation. It causes ore to be left in the ground that otherwise would be taken out of the ground and be useful to British Columbia and to the world. Once the mining operation has passed by that ore that would otherwise have been taken out of the ground, it is not going to come back and get it again because the costs are too high. In an underground mine it is not going to come back and open up those shafts, and in an open-pit mine it won't be economic to rework the whole pit just for the low-grade that happens to be in the walls.

The fact of the matter is that if it costs a certain amount of money to mine a ton of ore — let's say it costs a couple of dollars to mine a ton of ore — if you put a royalty, let's say a 50-cent royalty, on it, then where it used to be economic to take out ore that was worth $2 a ton, now it has to be worth $2.50 a ton before you take it out. That's the basic, simply-put impact of a royalty on the economics of the mining industry.

When I finished yesterday I was quoting Ed Scholtz, President of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. There was one statement by him that I didn't get to — his assessment that out of the six billion tons of proven and potential ore in British Columbia, something between three and four billion tons will be rendered uneconomic by Bill 31 as presently written.

The Minister may, with amendments, change the arithmetic of that bill a little bit but the principle remains the same. Some multiple billions of tons are going to be made uneconomic by Bill 31. That's the destruction of an asset to the people of British Columbia that has to be measured in the billions of dollars. As those pits are worked over and bypassed, the destruction just doesn't become theoretical; it becomes complete once the mining operation moves on. The operation isn't going to come back and get those low-cost resources that could only have been picked up at a profit in the first place because the whole set of machinery and equipment was already there.

In making those several billions of tons from ore into waste rock, the lives of mines around the province are going to be shortened inevitably.

Just from public sources, I got together a list the other day of the lives of some of the mines around the province. These aren't the estimates of the companies; they are simply determined by dividing their published ore reserves by their daily operating rate. All of the big ones, which tend to be copper and tend to be the big employers and tend to support entire towns, are the ones who are going to have their lives shortened by this Bill 31.

We can look at Bethlehem Copper which has in its present mining operation — arrived at by this process — something like five years left. That's without the JA zone ore body which that company, I believe, has stated cannot be economically brought into production with Bill 31. There are a lot of people who depend for a livelihood on Bethlehem Copper.

Brenda Mines Ltd. is a 24,000-tons-a-day operation with something like 16 years indicated life at the moment. That life will be cut considerably by Bill 31 with its present arithmetic, or even with new arithmetic, unless the Minister takes that royalty off entirely.

Gibraltar Mines Ltd: very low grade; huge operation of 38,000 tons a day. Current indicated life — again by this measure of calculation — is something like 25 years.

Now, in the case of Gibraltar, for example, Mr. Minister, the life of that mine should have gone up and up as the price of copper went up. It's one of these situations where the grade of ore just pales away gradually. There are lots more out there as the price goes up. But, in fact, because of Bill 31, those reserves have been reduced from 25 years. Once again, the employment that depends on it and the towns that depend on it are suffering to that effect.

The same with Granduc; the same with Granisle; the same with Lornex, another 38,000 tons a day; Bell Copper division of Noranda; Similkameen in the Minister of Public Works' riding (Hon. Mr. Hartley); Utah Mines. All of these are going to have their lives cut by Bill 31 if it's put in effect and if it stays in effect. That's what a royalty does.

I referred very briefly yesterday to the work of Professor Evans and the calculations he had made on the wealth lost from a single mine through the enactment of Bill 31. He made his calculations at four different price levels; at 80 cents, at $1 and at $1.20. You can pick whichever price level you like.

At $1.20, Bill 31 cuts the mine life from 7.4 years to 2.6 years. At $1 it cuts it from 4.8 to 2.4. At 80 cents it cuts it to nil because the mine wouldn't be economic at all. This is a hypothetical, low-grade copper mine. Hypothetical. I'm going to come to an actual case in just a minute, Mr. Minister.

The total wealth that would be generated by this mine, because of the extra ore that would be taken out, would be $154 million without Bill 31. It would be cut down to $81.6 million with it at $1.20 price level for copper. At $1 price level, the cut would be from $100 million in wealth generated to $58 million in wealth generated to nil, because again with Bill 31 this mine wouldn't be opened.

There was a distribution, naturally, of the grade of the ore, ranging from 12 pounds per ton down to two pounds per ton.

This is a very serious price to be paying for the extra revenue that would come into British Columbia because of Bill 31 — to lose all these wages just so this government can say it got some extra resource revenue.

I'm sure the Minister has seen this graph, There is

[ Page 4026 ]

the line below the zero axis which shows the losses caused by Bill 31. There's a little bulge above the zero which shows the extra government revenue. They don't begin to balance. In effect, because Bill 31 will cause the leaving of that ore in the ground, it causes a drastic net loss to British Columbia.

That will be the case even if you jigger around the bill's arithmetic, Mr. Minister, as long as you have any kind of royalty at all.

Now, that was a hypothetical mine. You asked about an actual mine. The Association of Professional Engineers did the same kind of calculations with an actual operating mine. They did it with some different prices; slightly different. They did one calculation at $1.25 per pound, another calculation at 90 cents per pound, and another calculation at 75 cents per pound. The results essentially confirm those of Dr. Evans.

At $1.20 Bill 31 would reduce the life of the mine by two years. That would be from 9.7 down to 7.7. It would reduce the wealth generated by $30 million; it would reduce the wages and benefits by some $9 million. Mine equipment suppliers would lose revenues amounting to $9 million as well. The mining company cash flow would lose mining company taxes amounting to $20 million. That's if the proposed budget isn't implemented. The B.C. government revenue gained from the mining company would amount to $62 million. So that has been quite a drastic trade for that $62 million. That's at $1.25.

At 90 cents it is worse. At 90 cents — and this is a much more likely figure — the B.C. government, which would have had $17 million in tax revenue under the existing taxation, would get nothing because the mine wouldn't be operating with Bill 31. At 74 cents, of course, that's even more so. Whereas it would be economic and the provincial government would have received $6 million at a 74-cent level without Bill 31.

The Minister earlier on asked about cutoff grades. Some calculations were done for me in two cases, because, of course, these cases vary greatly with costs.

The first is a mining cost of $2.50 a ton. At a metal price of 50 cents the cutoff grade goes from 0.434 per cent up to 0.40 per cent with the royalty. At 60 cents it goes from 0.311 up to 0.348. At 0.70 it goes from 0.267 to 0.293. At $1 it goes from 0.169 to 0.228.

That's a very significant difference when you get up to those higher price levels. You start to raise your cutoff grade quite a bit, almost double, and therefore you would leave a lot of ore in the ground.

In the case of $6.50 a ton, the results are essentially the same. At $1 the grade goes up from 0.44 to 0.59 for a cutoff grade. So all of the theoretical calculations show very clearly that a royalty is going to be a high cost to the citizens of British Columbia in terms of ore left in the ground, in terms of bad conservation practices, in terms of mines phasing out earlier, and in terms of jobs not had and wages not paid. That's on the theoretical side.

To show it's just not theory, I want to cite a few case examples. I'm not going to read this article but I want to refer people to it. It's an article by Charlie Campbell, page 6 of the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, May 30. It's an excellent article; it's an absolutely first-rate article.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I hope you'll send me a copy of that, Mr. Minister. I'd like to refer you to this article, if you haven't read it already. I would like everyone in B.C. to read it because it gives a good overview of what this bill is going to do.

Now I want to give a few case examples as to what's happening to the service industry and the jobs therein. Here's a letter saying:

"Although we are considered one of the leading companies in providing analytical services to the mining industry, we have already had to reduce our professional staff from 15 to our present nine. Further staff cutbacks are anticipated if Bill 31 is passed in its present form.

"As you can see, we are not a large company. Our resources are limited and our overhead is high. A great deal of specialized equipment, instrumentation and training are involved in our operations. Each employee is highly specialized to handle a particular operational activity.

"Although our company operates as a private concern, we've been most active in encouraging employee participation at all levels. We maintained profit-sharing arrangements with employees through 1973, even though our company operations were marginal. Four of the nine employees earned more in 1973 than the participating owners of the company. At present we are paying salaries on borrowed money and hope the business will somehow re-establish itself in the month of April."

This must have been written in March.

"How much longer we survive as an operational secondary industry is entirely dependent on the legislation passed in Victoria. We sincerely hope that the provincial government will anticipate the possible consequences of Bill 31 in its present form."

That letter's from my riding, Mr. Minister, as are a lot of the letters I have of that kind. It's not just in the rural parts of British Columbia that the mining industry has an impact, as I made the case yesterday. Here's another quotation, this one from a talk by

[ Page 4027 ]

Mr. Higgs, who I quoted yesterday, a talk up in Duncan:

"Twenty-four potential new mines requiring an estimated capital investment of $1,825 million are on ice as a result of Bill 31. These properties, if placed in production, would result in approximately 5,900 new jobs and related employment for an additional 15,000 people.

"The effect of Bill 31 " — Higgs said later — "will be to convert a number of producing mines into unsuccessful investments, reduce by up to 50 per cent the economic life of surviving mines, make waste out of at least four billion tons of present ore and reduce capital investment in the industry by more than $2 billion in the next decade."

Those are pretty serious figures, Mr. Minister. I don't think that there is any way you can get off that hook. You might say that the figures are double what they should be under Bill 31, but you can't say that the general thrust and direction isn't there, that these jobs are not going to be produced and the ones that exist are going to be shortened.

The Vancouver Sun, May 23:

"Bethlehem Copper Corporation president, Patrick Reynolds, warns that the potential consequence of the Mineral Land Tax Act and the proposed Mineral Royalties Act may very well make the development of the company's J.A. and Maggie ore bodies uneconomic."

This is what the employees of Bethlehem were counting on to keep that company going after the five years I referred to earlier on.

Dolly Varden was trying to make a deal for financing to get something done this year. They were seared off by Bill 31.

At a meeting held by the chamber of commerce up in Kamloops there was an excellent talk given by Mr. John Kerr, a geologist. Here's what he said in part:

"In 1972, 1,000 people walked the hills of Kamloops searching out ore bodies. Now there are 20 to 30 people involved, due primarily to Bill 44. My business has had two exploration projects cancelled as a direct result of Bill 31, meaning a loss of $70,000 and 30 or 40 months of work for one man.

"The broad range of secondary and tertiary industries in Kamloops from charter helicopters to bars will realize a drop in business due to the lack of exploration.

"The discovery to production takes about five to seven years. Therefore, in 5 to 10 years, when the economy is prepared for new mines to replace some of the existing ones, there will be no new ore bodies available. At least five years will pass before this bill really takes its toll. "

Here's another letter from a service company.

They sent copies to all political groups in British Columbia, so I guess I can use their name. It's Alrae Engineering Limited:

"Our company is a service company in the mining exploration field and in 1970 employed approximately 90 people. Since the socialist government has been elected there has been a continual decline in our personnel to the present staff of three." From 90 to three.

"The past year, however, has seen unprecedented rises in the price of base and precious metals which would normally be attended with rapidly increasing exploration activity in British Columbia. This activity is, however, coming to a standstill."

Here's another firm sending out a newsletter to their customers:

"Because of the decrease of exploration activity in B.C. we have closed the Vancouver laboratory on a temporary basis. However, we will be maintaining a sample preparation facility and expediting services to either Whitehorse or Toronto."

You've been getting these letters, haven't you, Mr. Minister? You've been getting a lot of those letters, and answered them all unsatisfactorily — the same form reply. The people who got some of your answers wrote back to me, and they weren't very satisfied with them. You haven't convinced them, Mr. Minister, that's for sure. I'm just sad that they haven't convinced you. You sure haven't convinced me.

Look at the case history of the Churchill Copper Mine. Listen to the remarks of the president in his report for the third quarter. This is a case where there's sure no rip-off; there's no money coming back.

"As shareholders are aware, Churchill has had a difficult history. The mine was originally placed into production in July, 1970, after a capital expenditure of over $13 million. Copper prices were approximately 70 cents per pound at the time but fell rapidly the following year to less than 50 cents per pound.

"Operations were suspended in October, 1971, to conserve ore reserves until prices improved. The company renegotiated its outstanding loans and maintained the property in the expectation that copper prices would recover to more reasonable levels."

That's a pretty secure business, isn't it, Mr. Minister?

"Copper prices began to improve in 1973. Negotiations for the reopening of the mine were initiated. After months of effort Churchill was able to renegotiate concentrate sales terms and arrange the necessary new financing to reopen the operation. In the meantime, the price of copper recovered to over $1 a pound."

So they certainly should have been able to make it then, eh? It looked like they were finally in good

[ Page 4028 ]

shape.

"It appeared that Churchill, finally, with a total capital investment now over $14.5 million would be able to capitalize on improved copper prices and retire some of its debts."

That is a reasonable hope.

"In making the decision to reopen the company had to decide whether to proceed quickly in order to start the operation before winter, showing faith that our elected representatives would introduce reasonable mining tax legislation, or, alternatively, wait until the legislation came down, thereby postponing reopening for several months with the risk of foregoing high copper prices."

They were trusting you, Mr. Minister. They were trusting that reasonable legislation was going to be introduced.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Before the fact, I guess it was logical. After the fact, they were shown to have made a bad mistake.

"The decision to reopen Churchill was made on the basis that the government had postponed introduction of Bill 31 in order to study the legislation and take into account submissions by interested individuals in the industry. Many briefs were submitted and we believed that legislation would be such that the reopening of the mine would be worthwhile."

They had faith.

The Attorney-General is quoted in The Province as saying that the level of taxation which has now been proposed is minimal and "something the companies can live with easily, even with the new federal policies." I saw that in the newspaper. I couldn't believe he said that, but he did.

He also said: "It's unlikely B.C. would change the proposed royalties legislation, Bill 31, as a result of federal policy, since the royalties are very small in relation to soaring prices."

It makes you wonder how much the Attorney-General understands about Bill 31. You don't mean to tell me that you agree with that, Mr. Minister? You don't mean to tell me that a 50 per cent royalty is small in relation to soaring prices? It's 50 per cent; that's not small.

HON. MR. COCKE: Fifty per cent of windfall.

MR. GIBSON: Tax to profits, Mr. Minister of Health: You stand up and make your speech about that.

"With these statements in mind, your attention is drawn to the statement of operations included with this report. With a capital cost of over $13 million, none of which has been recovered, and an additional cost of over $1.5 million to reopen the mine, your company had a mining profit of $1,074,000 for the first three months of this year.

"The estimated royalty which would be payable to the province if Bill 31 is passed into law would be $890,000. Even without federal income tax, this amount is hardly minimal."

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I've taken the company's figures; if you disagree with them, you stand up and refute them.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: You stand up and refute them if you don't like these figures, Mr. Minister. You know perfectly well that with copper at $1.20 or so a pound that's exactly the impact that your royalty has. In a high-cost producer, it can end up with them paying 90 per cent and more. I'll get to that later when we get to the Phoenix mines.

"These figures clearly illustrate that the proposals in Bill 31 are so onerous that a mine such as Churchill cannot survive even with the unusually high copper prices in recent months. Over the past year, when the government was known to be establishing new taxation policy, representations were made pointing out that small high-cost mines were unable to exist under royalty legislation. Obviously this advice was ignored in devising Bill 31.

"Bill 31 has not yet become law, and the interested shareholders are requested to advise elected representatives of their opinion on this proposed legislation.

"It is obvious that the government has little or no regard for the effect of Bill 31 on the mining industry. It is regretted that this first report of financial results after recommendation of production contains the dismal news that the operation will be forced to close if the confiscatory taxation in Bill 31 becomes law."

That's not much of a way to treat people who opened the mine against considerable odds, who have tremendous debts. You are not leaving them enough after Bill 31 to even service their debts, let alone any profits. How many profits have there been out of Granduc over the years?

Here is another letter:

"I am a geologist and I stand to lose my job if Bill 31 is passed. I have written to my NDP MLA and his reply to my letter indicates he does not understand or does not want to

[ Page 4029 ]

acknowledge the part played by the mining industry in the economy of this province."

There are a lot of letters like that.

Here is a statement of effective tax rates under Bill 31 — the effective tax rate on that income before taxes of copper mines in British Columbia, and they specify a number of mines. They submitted this brief to the Minister. The mines that are specified here are marked by letters. They may have identified the actual operations to the Minister.

At copper mine A, at a copper price of 75 cents, they would have a tax rate of 91 per cent in effective tax rate because of Bill 31. A copper price of $1 — an effective tax rate of 83 per cent. Mine B, effective rate of 61 per cent at 75 cents and 66 per cent at $1. And so on down the list. Extraordinarily high rates of tax.

Here is one that maybe made the Minister happy, it's a press release by one of those terrible foreign corporations:

"Newmont Mining Corporation of Canada has announced that it will not undertake any new mineral exploration programmes in British Columbia if Bill 31 the Mineral Royalties Act is approved by the provincial government in its present form."

That one perhaps made the Minister happier, I don't know — considerable disposition against foreign companies on that side of the House.

Here is another letter:

"Without a doubt if the bill goes through as written, the mining industry and mining exploration will be markedly curtailed in B.C., its longevity shortened and precious resources wasted or never developed.

"Consequently, many small companies such as ours — we employ six people — will also be ill effected and our employees' opportunity for growth and income-increase inhibited."

A letter from a drilling company:

"A loss of an estimated 12,000 hours of employment for our men. Thirteen employees who enjoyed year-round work enabling them to build homes and raise families in Merritt will have to look elsewhere for work."

A statement by the western contract manager for Canadian Longyear:

"The number of employees in the field has declined to 97 in 1973 from 159 in 1970. The number of warehouse and administration employees has declined to 20 from 34."

From Sprout Lake Silver Mine, a letter explaining why a small mine which would have employed from 30 to 40 people, which is helpful, can't open, can't work.

A copy of the telegram sent to Premier Barrett with copies to Leo Nimsick, Minister of Mines, and Hartley Dent, MLA, Skeena, referring to the Stikine copper drilling programme:

CANCELLATION OF THIS PROGRAMME WOULD MEAN A $900,000 LOSS OF INCOME TO OUR COMPANY PLUS A CONSIDERABLE LOSS TO OTHER SUPPORTING INDUSTRIES. IT WOULD MEAN UNEMPLOYMENT FOR 40 OF OUR FIELD PEOPLE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR AN UNDETERMINED NUMBER OF OUR SUPPORTING PERSONNEL.

The Minister knows what happened to that one.

How is the government going to develop northwestern British Columbia without those mines up there, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker — without the Liard mine and without the Stikine mine? How are you going to do that? What kind of freight are they going to carry on that BCR extension? How is that going to be justified? Are you going to go in and develop those mines yourself? Is that what you have in the back of your mind? Maybe it is.

Another letter:

"Since we are only a small mining contracting company and do not have the resources nor contracts required to move out of the province, your proposed mining legislation has effectively put us out of business and with us, the jobs of 15 or 20 people."

I'll send you copies of all these letters if you want.

Another letter from an exploration manager, mentioning how development plans were cancelled in the Prince Rupert area. It says:

"We've also cancelled plans within the last week for a feasibility study on an extremely expensive but interesting copper prospect which would tie in with the B.C. Railway north of Tatla Lake.

"With respect to our company alone, over $1 million will thus be lost this summer largely to local service agencies based in Smithers and Prince George, and a proposed hundredfold increase which would probably have been generated will be indefinitely shelved until sanity returns.

"I hope to retain some money for continuing B.C. work but this will only be salvaged if my principals do not read or appreciate the additional small print implications in your poorly worded bill.

"Most exploration companies are leaving B.C. as completely as possible because they realize an uneconomic situation when they see one."

It's not just the direct exploration field; here is a letter from a small manufacturer:

"I am a small B.C. businessman owning and operating three Vancouver-based companies. We manufacture and sell considerable equipment to mines. Anything that affects the

[ Page 4030 ]

B.C. mining industry directly affects our 40 employees and their families."

Another copy of a letter to the Premier:

"I am opposed to Bill 31 mainly because if it is passed I will soon be out of a job. Having worked for a mining equipment company for the past 6 years I can really notice the decline in business since this bill was proposed. Exploration contracts are being cancelled left and right. Therefore our customers are cancelling orders the same."

Mr. Minister, I know a lot of these people personally who have lost these jobs. It's not imagination; these are real people.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: These are real people who are losing money, who are losing their jobs.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Those are real people who are losing their jobs because exploration has been cut in this province. And the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) knows it.

A letter from another secondary manufacturer who supplies the mining industry:

"The year '73 saw a very drastic drop in our trade with the exploration companies who mainly operate in B.C. What business we did get in '73, and that which is indicated for '74, is all for outside the province of B.C. This means we will lose to Alberta and Ontario suppliers eventually. Our company today employs upward of 240 people and is a highly labour-intensive industry. British Columbia can ill afford to lose her secondary industries as jobs must be provided for a growing population."

It's continuing to grow, Mr. Minister, as you know.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: So far we have been lucky in B.C., we have kept ahead. We've kept up with the general Canadian trend. But what you are doing to the mining industry is going to be one of the things that turns that around as these secondary effects ricochet through the economic system.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I'm betting a lot on it and so are you; you are betting a lot of the fate of your government on the results of this policy.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: And you are betting the jobs of a lot of British Columbians on it. You are betting on whether there will be any mines around when our kids are growing up.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You've got a big bet going there.

Helicopter companies: Dan Weib, chief pilot for Northern Mountain Helicopter, and Lowell Richley, operation manager for Northern Thunderbird say their firms have lost more than $2,000 in contracts so far this year as mineral firms curtail exploration projects. That was back on March 28.

The Premier made much in his speech about the fact that Cominco Ltd. apparently sent a letter to its employees saying that their operations wouldn't be closed down or curtailed. But the Premier didn't go on to talk about the rest of the letter. Here's the part he talked about:

"Cominco Ltd. has informed its employees that it anticipates no curtailment of existing operations in B.C. despite the impact of the royalties and taxes implicit in the proposals of Bill 31. "

Cheers for the Premier, it sounds good. Good news. How does the letter go on?

"The bill would, however, have an impact on everyone employed in our B.C. operations."

AN HON. MEMBER: He just read part of it!

MR. GIBSON: He just read part of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the good part.

MR. GIBSON:

"The royalties the government intends to take are not related to profits, as are normal taxes. Rising costs are not taken into consideration. This substantial added cost would sharply reduce the amount of money available to Cominco and other mining companies for wages, salaries, pensions and the creation of new operations."

The proposed bill would discourage exploration, the letter said.

"…and if development work is reduced there it is inevitable there will be fewer mines to feed our smelters. As our present mines become mined out, the feed for the Trail operations will decrease.

"Bill 31 therefore presents a long-term threat to our smelters and fertilizer operations as well as the mines."

That was in that letter, wasn't it, Mr. Minister? The Premier didn't mention that part of the letter.

Interjection.

[ Page 4031 ]

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Minister of defence (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the admiral of the fleet (Hon. Mr. Strachan) are back.

MR. GIBSON: Here's one from another geographical company, again in my riding.

"Our company employs 15 full-time people and between 20 and 30 people for three to six months in our western operations alone. The effect to date of Bill 31 is loss of income from B.C. exploration of five of our top 10 clients. Of the rest, most are tabling their work pending outcome of the legislation."

Granduc was mentioned earlier. March 28:

"'The provincial government's proposed royalties legislation is the most serious threat to the continued existence of Granduc Mines Limited,' President J. Norman Hyland said.

"Hyland said: 'It is relevant to note that after 20 years Granduc shareholders have yet to receive any return on their high-risk investment.'"

That's those rip-off mining profits.

Figures developed for the effect of Bill 31 on the Phoenix Mine: in 1974, with royalty, an effective tax rate of 95 per cent — that's at 0.35 per cent copper; in 1975, mining 0.6 per cent copper, 69 per cent effective tax rate. That's at a copper price of $1 a pound. Those are pretty rough tax rates, Mr. Minister. "Government Holds Key to Mines' Fate." That's a headline relating to the Benson Lake Mine of Coast Copper.

April 2: "Placid Shuts Down B.C. Copper Mine." A large factor in that shutdown and the determination not to develop an underground section was Bill 31. The Minister shakes his head!

"'With the probability of new royalties and excess profits tax'"

— he doesn't understand the tax, apparently —

"'under mining legislation now before the B.C. House, it would not have been profitable,' said Bewik, the mine manager, 'since the competency of the rock wasn't good.'"

But Bill 31I was a factor, Mr. Minister.

Here's a letter from Wright Engineers Limited and I guess they sent copies to the immediate world.

"Unfortunately for British Columbia the drop in our normal B.C. workload since '71 has meant the loss of approximately 100 jobs."

100 jobs in one company.

"In our opinion this drop has been caused by government policy — firstly by uncertainty over federal taxation in '71 and secondly by uncertainty in your provincial taxation and — royalties through to the present time. The drop in our B.C. workload occurred in spite of metal prices which should be creating boom conditions in the B.C. mineral industry."

That's that constant fact you have to keep coming back to, Mr. Minister and that you can't overlook — in the best metal prices in the history of this province, exploration has fallen off to less than half of what it was last year, which in turn was half of what it was the year before. Everywhere else in the world it's booming. In the Yukon it's booming and in the Northwest Territories it's booming. As one of the Members said, this should be called the Yukon Advancement bill. This letter continues:

"In effect your policy has caused the loss in our engineering office alone of at least 100 jobs. Further at this time, because of the uncertainty created by you, it's virtually impossible for any large new mine to start production before '76 — a four-year gap since a large mine came on stream, a gap without precedent in recent B.C. mining industry.

"We've been responsible for dozens of feasibility studies of various mining situations, both in B.C. and abroad. We know and understand the sensitivity of investment capital to risks brought about by fluctuating metal prices and taxation."

That's that discretionary aspect.

"We have studied the remote northern properties in the Stikine area.

"Any interpretation we have been able to make to date on your Bill 31 suggests that very few, if any, B.C. properties will proceed to production. Those in the remote north will have no chance as long as there's any possibility of the bill becoming law in its present form."

Here's another letter from the north. The final two sentences:

"As an NDP supporter and voter I am bitter. You knocked the bottom out of my independence and way of life. I'm off to the Yukon so I can eat next winter."

Another letter:

"….Consequently I am concerned about my husband's future in mineral exploration in B.C. I feel that he and other geologists in the industry in general can only pay their share to society when they're working."

Here's another one. I'll just read the headline: "Atlin Miners Pour Out Complaints." I'll send a copy over to the Hon. Member.

Here's an excellent letter from Mr. H.A. Quinn, to the Minister. It's very long letter and I'm not going to read it, but he says in his opening sentence:

"Your Bill 31 has destroyed my consulting business"

— just a one-man consulting business —

"and made it impossible for me to earn a living in my native province, where I was born in Kelowna before W.A.C.B. arrived there. I urgently request that you either withdraw Bill

[ Page 4032 ]

31 and replace it with higher taxes on profits or obtain the advice of an advisory committee or a commission of inquiry before making the drastic changes of Bill 31."

Another story about Ashcroft and the problems that Bill 31 is going to bring to that town.

Another detailed story on the Stikine and how 60 diamond drill holes were completed in '73 and now they've just cut that right off.

Here's another one, from the president of Western Mines:

"In view of the situation, it would obviously be unwise to continue an active exploration policy in B.C. The exploration properties we now own or hold under option will be placed on a maintenance basis, pending a change in government or a fundamental change in attitude on the part of the present government."

It's not surprising.

Did you see, Mr. Minister, the discussion that was in the Vancouver Sun the other day with the head of Bethlehem Copper? Part of it concerned the Highland Valley. I wish the Minister from that area was here, but I'll read it anyway.

"Question: Surely this government has been sensitive to the potential creation of unemployment in mining, to say nothing of maintaining employment which exists in the industry already.

"Answer: You might think that would be the case. However, I recently suffered something of a shock in correspondence with Hon. William Hartley, Minister of Public Works and the sitting Member for the riding in which the Highland Valley is situated. In a letter of May 13 I reminded him that on April 30 I had written to him expressing my concern over Bill 31, and that between those dates the federal government had seen fit to announce taxation which would not allow mining companies to deduct royalties in order to arrive at taxable income. I pointed out that since much of the existing mining and mining potential of B.C. was located within his riding, he could be of great help in bringing the two governments together to work out a formula for fair taxation which would allow the mining industry to carry on.

"In due course I received a reply from him and in part I will quote directly from it. 'If any mines close and miners' jobs terminate, of necessity they will have to find work elsewhere.'

"Question: How many employees does Bethlehem have?

"Answer: About 400, of which about 380 work in the Highland Valley.

"Question: Do they live in their own homes in Ashcroft?

"Answer: A great many live in their own homes.

Here's a copy of a petition from Texada Island. It is signed by 200 residents of Texada Island. I think that was tabled in the House by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), wasn't it? It was tabled in the House here — 280 signatures from Texada Island.

Here's some people who were silly enough to buy some mining stock:

"Not being in a position to retire, we took on a low-paying job of managing an apartment, which is a seven-day-a-week job, and invested our small savings in Gibraltar Mines, which we hoped would give us a good return and a sufficient income to retire. It is common knowledge what this company has done financially; however, the heavy threat of taxes and royalties in the last year-and-a-half has depressed the stock, as it has with all B.C. mining.

"We are not looking for hand-outs from supplement or welfare. We are the kind of  'people' who have invested our money to make B.C. prosper, but if Bill 31 becomes law our savings will be wiped out and we will be financially ruined. We are two of the many people who you, Mr. Barrett, are supposed to be helping.

"Signed:

"75 and still working."

Here's a letter from a mine mechanic who's concerned about his job. He says:

"You state, sir, that Bill 31 is for the people. Am I, as a mechanic employed by a mine, a non-people?"

There's a lot wondering that.

A man in a community up north, who prospects in the Prince George area, said:

"In the last election 15 out of 16 votes cast in our community were for the NDP. They were sick and tired of the Socred government which wouldn't listen to the people.

"We are now on the verge of destruction by the NDP. Thousands of British Columbians voted for the NDP out of desperation and the government is in Victoria on a trial basis."

It sure is and it hasn't been a very good trial. Here is the editor of the Beaverdell Bugle who finishes up a scathing editorial on Bill 31 by saying this:

"I'm writing Mr. Nimsick directly to let him know my feeling on this matter and I encourage you to do the same and soon. The more people who write to the government and complain, the greater chance there is of changing their

[ Page 4033 ]

minds."

Fat chance.

"Lastly, like 95 per cent of Beaverdellians, I voted NDP in the last election but I will regret it should the government continue with this two-tier royalty. It will kill the mining industry."

Here, which I won't read, are 28 pages of further excerpts of comment on Bill 31. I've got a fat folder down here that I'm not going to read either.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'll read it all if you like, Mr. Minister. Or I'll send it over to you for you to have a look at it. Would that satisfy you? I'll send it over to you to have a look at it.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, they don't know what they are about — that's the problem.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is past proper time to do it, but I would ask if I might have the leave of the House to file a petition related to Bill 31, which is a catch-up of names from several places around the province — lists still coming in from Trail and Ashcroft and so on. If I might just lay that on the table.

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you. I would say there are 200 or 300 names here. Their occupations are listed on the petition, Mr. Minister, which you are welcome to inspect. It's miners and people from all walks of life.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, there are lots and lots of case examples: those are just a few of them. I'm not going to read any more case examples into the record, but they sure exist. Every Member of this House has them.

Why are we in all this trouble and why have people gotten so badly stirred up? It amounts, basically, to NDP dogma, as I said earlier on. And it appears to be just this particular branch of the NDP here in British Columbia. The Minister of Mines in Manitoba, in making his policy speech on mineral development, opened with a couple of statements. He said:

"The Government of Manitoba has determined on the following policy objectives relative to mineral development within our province: (1) the people of Manitoba must receive revenue from existing mineral developments consistent with a fair return to the owners of the resource;

"(2) the existing private sector operators must be able and permitted to receive a fair return on their invested capital commensurate with the nature of their undertaking."

In other words, he has specifically recognized there that there is some criterion of fairness for the return of the private sector. I compare that with a quote from our Minister that was published in the same magazine. This was all in The Western Miner, the April volume. The Hon. Minister wrote an article there, Mr. Speaker. He said:

"One of the greatest fears of the mining industry seems to be the proposed royalty rate for escalating prices."

You bet it is.

"The price of minerals is settled on the international market and has little relationship to the cost of production. When a mine is brought into operation it is done so on a feasibility study that decides the price at which a profit can be made. At that time little consideration is given to the fact that the price might escalate. Hence, at times of extremely high prices there are extremely high profits. We say the people of British Columbia should share in this rare good fortune."

Mr. Minister, the people of British Columbia should share in this rare good fortune. They should share in it through a profit tax, not a royalty. We get back to that basic fact that a tax on profits doesn't distort the economic picture, and all of the ore is taken out of the ground; you've got your proper conservation practices. The royalty causes ore to be left in the ground and causes high-grading.

There was an amazing article in the paper entitled "Williams Cites Gains in Mine Profits." Our Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was up north talking about mines' profits. He sure got somebody up there pretty mad because they wrote Mr. Williams a letter, saying in part:

"Your percentage of profit figures relating to Placer, Granby, Cominco and Western Mines interested me to the extent that I had them checked with the respective mining companies. I found they were true in part. The greatest inaccuracy in your report had to do with the fact that the income figures you used were from the company's worldwide operations and not from their B.C. operations only, as you implied.

"In the case of Gibraltar, the mine operated at capacity for only five months in 1972 and at capacity throughout 1973 so they were bound to show a greater profit in 1973 than in 1972."

The Hon. Minister had apparently been talking about increases in profit.

"Why didn't you acknowledge that Cominco earnings were from B.C., other Canadian provinces, U.S.A., India, U.K., and Africa? You implied the earnings were from B.C. You chose

[ Page 4034 ]

to ridicule Placer. Who is Placer anyway? Placer is a Canadian company — yes — a British Columbia company and a company which happens to be a lot more successful than most. What do you want to do? Drive them to the U.S.A.?

"Until September 1961, Placer had a couple of relatively small operations at Salmo, B.C. Through their intelligence, aggressiveness and fortitude, and since they have the best exploration and an engineering team yet assembled in B.C. they achieved great success and robbed no one. They made more and better deals for prospectors and small mining companies than any other major mining company in B.C. Ridicule Placer, Mr. Williams? Sell it to the socialists, but anyone who knows anything will refute you."

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's a Canadian company, Mr. Member. Placer Development is a Canadian company. Let me give you the percentage of ownership. I'll give you the percentage of ownership if I can find the chart here.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: A Member asked that question, Mr. Minister. Here we are: Placer Development Ltd., percentage directly Canadian owned — 73 per cent. That's a good Canadian company. I would like to have it higher, but 73 per cent is not bad. That same….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Member, I think you have your figures backwards if you think it is 27 per cent Canadian owned — that's just exactly the opposite. I was talking to the Member, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Here is the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) again quoted. The Minister, who should, I hope, worry about his seat. Is talking about the Similkameen mines — the Newmont Mines. He says:

"If that particular international corporation chooses not to do exploration work in B.C., there are plenty of other companies that will. Perhaps the government will have to get into exploration work as well."

Is that going to be government policy, Mr. Minister? Is that going to be government policy to get into the exploration field? It's not going to work; you know that. Civil servants can't do exploration. There is just no way that is going to work.

Still trying to divine how NDP policy is formed, we come to an analysis of Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act of British Columbia, done by the United Steelworkers. Do you know where it was done, Mr. Minister? In the research department of the United Steelworkers of America, 55 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto. Nevertheless, let us assume that they have a close knowledge of the B.C. mining industry. At least they did it in Canada.

They come out with this to say about your Bill 31, Mr. Minister. They support a good deal of it, but a part of it — the part that the Canadian Bar Association was most concerned about — mainly discretion…here is what they have to say.

"The argument that Bill 31 allows too much uncertainty has some validity, at least as far as new mines are concerned. The ability of the cabinet to set base values for minerals arbitrarily is a matter for some concern. The mining industry relies to a large extent on debt capital. It is partly because of the extensive use of non-equity capital that returns on equity so high.

"In the process of securing debt capital, producers must be able to show that proposed mines are feasible, and that debt can be repaid. The discretionary power which the bill gives to the Mines Minister and the cabinet leaves some doubt as to what the effect of royalties will be in the future. While it is important that British Columbians get a larger share of their natural resources, it is only fair that the amount of their share be announced in advance."

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) applauds that, Mr. Speaker. It's a good steelworkers' brief. Why didn't the Minister of Mines applaud it? Why isn't he willing to give that advance certainty that the steelworkers think he should?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I'm glad you'll explain, Mr. Minister. I hope you're making notes of all of these things.

Sitting beside you is the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) who said in the paper the other day, in reference to a petition that was being taken up against him, that opposition to Bill 31, Mining Royalties Act, and even the Land Commission Act, was behind the petition. That's what the newspaper said you said, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I hope during this debate you will perhaps stand up and describe the feeling of the people of Omineca on this bill.

I hope, that NDP backbenchers, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) and Members from all around this

[ Page 4035 ]

province will stand up and give the reaction to their own voters and the letters they've been receiving on this bill. I hope they do that.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Sure you're going to be defeated, but how much damage are you going to do to this province first? That is what has everybody bothered.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The people of the province. This Bill 31 is just the worst piece of legislation on the economic side that you've brought in this session.

What other evidence do we have as to the feeling inside the cabinet? We have the evidence of a paper contributed by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to the 1971 NDP policy convention, saying in part:

"The acquisition of privately-owned corporations in the resource fields prior to major resource tax changes would be a mistake because the market price of those companies would be grossly inflated because of the wide range of tax holidays they presently enjoy. Any acquisition of those corporations prior to substantial tax changes would be a misallocation of public funds."

Is that what is behind it, Mr. Minister? If that is what's behind it, you're sure going about it the right way. Those companies are a lot cheaper now than they were a year ago. You just keep on this course and then you'll have those companies, but there are a lot of people who won't have any jobs. There are a lot of new companies that won't get started.

It's a wrong form of taxation.

Then the Minister has made statements. I keep asking him about this and he hasn't explained it yet. This was in his famous talk up in Kamloops, Mr. Speaker, when he said the mining kings who have been on the thrones in British Columbia for the last 100 years are just about off the throne now. He was pretty proud of that.

He justified it by saying that if someone wants to produce metals from their mines they would charge royalties. He was talking about private companies and he was talking about the CPR. He said, "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." He said that time and time again. "If it's good enough for the CPR, it should be good enough for the Government of British Columbia."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I thought you agreed.

MR. GIBSON: I don't agree with that for one little minute, Mr. Minister. And I'm not talking for the companies; I'm talking for the people of British Columbia who get their living from the mining industry in this province.

It's not good enough to say, "What's good enough for the CPR is good enough for the government." All the CPR has to care about is obeying the law and getting the best return they can for their shareholders. You've got to care about a lot more things than that. You've got to be concerned about the jobs of people in the Province of British Columbia, not just the revenue your government collects.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It's just not good enough. I'm sorry to have to talk to you this way on your 25th anniversary, Mr. Minister; I really am. It's just that Bill 31 works me up something awful.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Then you know what the Premier said. I have this down as some kind of a quote off the Jack Webster show. I didn't hear it personally but I'm told he said it. He said, "I don't believe the legislation has had a depressing effect on the industry."

HON. MR. LEA: Jack Webster said?

MR. GIBSON: No, the Premier said this. He said that most of the letters the government has got have been from downtown Vancouver.

HON. MR. LEA: Howe Street.

MR. GIBSON: "Howe Street," the Minister says. Brrrr. Howe Street. Terrible place. I used to know a person on Howe Street once. Let me tell you, the letters I've been getting haven't been from Howe Street. I just read a few of them out. They've come from all around the province.

You've just got these hang-ups; you've got a hang-up about royalty. You sure do. Let it all hang out. It's a bad hang-up for this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. GIBSON: Another little point, Mr. Minister, is what this bill is going to do to the processing possibilities in British Columbia. You just started a copper task force which is supposed to find ways to finally get us a copper smelter in this province. At the same time you're discouraging exploration and cutting the lives of the very mines that would feed that copper smelter.

How do you square that? How can you possibly make any sense out of the fact that, on the one hand,

[ Page 4036 ]

you say you want more processing, and, on the other hand, you're cutting the lives of the mines that would feed it.

In this same bill, where you pretend to have some incentive for the smelters, it's such a woefully small incentive that it doesn't look to me as though you really mean it. It's just in there for effect; just a token.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when the only thing left to do is present what you see as the right alternative.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think you've done that.

MR. GIBSON: I haven't put the alternative in detail yet, Mr. Attorney-General, but it won't take long.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not going to let them rush me. I'll talk a little slower.

What should be the elements that a proper taxation plan for the industry would include?

Element No. 1: it should encourage exploration, just the opposite of what Bill 31 is doing right now.

Element No. 2: it must, if anything, reduce risk rather than increase it. Bill 31 increases risk through the uncertainties of Ministerial discretion and through the much longer payback periods on debt.

No. 3: it must provide for the mining of the last possible ton of otherwise economically attractive ore. In other words, it must not turn economic ore into waste. Bill 31 goes exactly opposite to that principle.

No. 4: it should encourage the small operator. And who is Bill 31 going to hurt? It's going to hurt the small operator and it's going to hurt the ordinary person. It's not going to hurt the big company. The big companies will get their profits out. They'll take their exploration money and they'll go elsewhere. They won't be hurt. You will hurt them a little bit but not fatally. You're hurting the little companies and the people who work for those companies. The fourth principle is that it should encourage the small operator. No. 5: it should try to keep a larger proportion of the resource return for the Province of British Columbia as opposed to the federal government. But you've got to do that by negotiation. You can't expect to go in there with a bulldozer and think that's going to help federal-provincial relations. No. 6: the principle of taxation should not be a backdoor device for the takeover of the industry, as Bill 31 very definitely is with this tremendous Ministerial discretion.

No. 7: There should be recognition in that tax system of the need to maintain reasonable profits over the price cycle, recognizing that there will be good years and there will be bad years. The system has to look to the average return.

No. 8: For the explorer, prospector and developer — I'm not so concerned with the producer because the risk is less there — it should leave open the possibility of bonanza-type profits. There's that tremendous risk at that point in the industry. You should leave that possibility open. It's not a major cost factor but it is a major incentive.

So having said that, what's the right way to do all that?

Mr. Minister, you know the way to do all that. The right way to do all that is to have your regular taxes, and then add on top of that a further tax on excess profits which would be based and defined on a rate of return which the government would say was fair. Hear representations before you decide what's fair and then come to some conclusion. Then say, over that rate of return we will tax at a much higher level than underneath it.

Negotiate that out with the federal government and set your excess profits tax at a level which would return the kind of revenues that you say you're going to get under Bill 31. You say that you're just going to get pretty modest revenues under Bill 31, and I don't believe that, Mr. Minister. I think that they're going to be absolutely enormous. That's what I think.

But set your excess profits tax that way; and then, by taxing profits, you are meeting all of those desirable things. You're not discouraging exploration, which you are doing now. You're not leaving ore in the ground, which you are doing now. You're not increasing risk, which Bill 31 is doing. You're not discouraging the small operator, which Bill 31 is doing.

Then you've got a sensible system of taxation, which achieves the end you really want to achieve — getting more revenue out of the mineral industry for the people of British Columbia — without the adverse effects that your dogmatic, ideological hang-up on a royalty requires you to do.

It's just a very sad thing to see the bull-headed approach that's going on in this legislation. We're going to be in a situation in this province where to get back on the track there is maybe even going to have to be assistance for exploration.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You're not taking the attitude that your argument is hopeless, are you?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I'd be so happy if you would stand up and say that you were going to put an excess profits tax on. You could make my day and make your 25th anniversary and get thunderous applause in this House if you would just stand up

[ Page 4037 ]

right now and do that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm just trying to encourage him. He looks as if he's getting down.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Get back in your cage. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we could come to the stage where we need government financial assistance for exploration in British Columbia, because things are going to go down that badly.

Mr. Minister, you've got more free advice for the asking, more good advice from people all over this province, if you'd just choose to take it. If you'd just choose to say…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I look it all over.

MR. GIBSON: …to a committee of this House…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Analyzed it.

MR. GIBSON: …even to a committee of your own officials…. Would you, for goodness' sake, hold hearings? Would you pull this monstrosity back?

AN HON. MEMBER: This is no Liberal government.

MR. GIBSON: Relieve some of the uncertainty that's going on around here and hope that the exploration…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can sit down now.

MR. GIBSON: …can be gotten back on the track again in this province. I'm just waiting until you introduce those amendments and say, "Now all those arguments are out the window." But the principle remains, Mr. Minister. The way things are going with this Bill 31 you are destroying a large part of the heritage of the people of British Columbia by turning it from good ore into useless waste rock. I think it's an absolutely shameful thing.

We've got a province here we can be and have been building. It's one of the greatest parts of Canada and one of the greatest parts of the world, and it has been founded — our financial capability to do that — in large part on our God-given resources. Now because of a dogmatic idea about royalty and a stubborn refusal to raise the same kind of revenue through a profits tax, you are going to have the kind of adverse results that have been outlined in some detail here, that have been outlined by responsible people in every walk of life all around British Columbia for the last three months, and that you have chosen to ignore.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why don't you sit down? I'll get up and….

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I just think it's a tragic disgrace, and I have and shall continue to oppose this bill with everything I have.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's been an interesting debate so far. It has covered, I think, many of the pertinent reasons why we feel that Bill 31 should be hoisted. We indicated that to the Minister in the form of an amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, we're not on the amendment now.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I know we're not. But I do think that if you wanted to do the fair thing for the people in the Province of British Columbia, you would have accepted that amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that you cannot reflect upon a raised matter which has already been decided upon by the House.

MR. SMITH: Well, I could reflect very briefly, I would hope, Mr. Speaker. But, oh, we've got lots of time, Mr. Attorney-General.

Yes, I do believe that it could have well been put into the hands of a committee and that you would have received the benefit of advice from many people who are concerned about the legislation.

The Minister has labelled the mining industry as "rip-off artists." He's indicated to the people in the province that they are creaming the resource, that the present rate of taxation on mines is really doing nothing but line the pockets of the giant corporations.

But the one thing that he has been very hesitant to mention is the impact and the effect that this legislation will have, and is having, on the 50,000 or more people who are not directly employed in mining but indirectly as a result of mining activities in the Province of British Columbia.

Their jobs will be affected by the punitive type of legislation that we have before us. It's not the big companies who will be drastically hurt, except to say that they will probably cease operations in the Province of British Columbia. It's the people that

[ Page 4038 ]

they employ and the service industries that cater to the mining industry collectively in this province that are hurt the most and who will have to look for employment in other industries either in the Province of British Columbia or in other parts of Canada.

These are the little people that you are hurting with this type of legislation, Mr. Minister, and I think that you should know that that is who we are speaking about and who we are most concerned about when we debate this bill in second reading in the House.

It is unfortunate that you have taken the attitude you have, because it does affect the jobs of many thousands of people in the Province of British Columbia. You say that you are doing it to return a fair and equitable profit to the people of the province.

I'd like to say to you this: if you destroy the number two industry in the Province of British Columbia, which you are about to do with this bill, then there are no jobs, are there? And there is no revenue to the Crown either. If, as a result of the type of legislation that you propose, these people lose their jobs and the mines close down, there are not going to be any dollars left for the Crown, regardless. They could take 150 per cent of all the revenue that is available in the form of royalties or other taxes. I mean, 150 per cent of nothing is still nothing, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to refer to Bill 31 and the mining industry and the fact that the mining industry did pay tax — as you might be interested to know — prior to the time that you brought Bill 31 into the House.

I'd like to just spend a few moments, Mr. Speaker, summarizing what is going to happen to the mining industry with Bill 31, where it was before and what will happen with the combined efforts or the combined impact of Bill 31 and the proposals that the federal government has made. I'm not going to take too long to do this. But I think that it must be done.

I have with me a few charts and I'd like to show them to the Minister. I'm sure you will be interested in them.

This is a chart, Mr. Minister, that was made up to show the position of the mining industry under the existing tax legislation.

Are you not even interested enough to take a look at it?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It's over here, Mr. Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Put your glasses on.

MR. SMITH: You can see that, I think.

This is a graphic illustration of the industry and the impact of taxation and what position they were in prior to the introduction of Bill 31 in the Province of British Columbia.

We'll start at the top. For purposes of illustration we've taken the world price of copper and assumed it to be at a level of 100 cents per pound for a concentrate.

There's no assumptions for depreciation or earned depletion in this particular graph, but it does show where the industry was, prior to Bill 31. At that time, 25 cents out of every dollar went into the smelting and transportation. That's 25 cents out of every dollar's worth of ore, if you consider copper at $1 a pound. I think that's a fair assumption.

Okay, it's higher than that right now, I'll agree. But it could be lower next month or the month after that. And it is a fluctuating price, as you know, in the copper business, so $1 a pound is certainly better than the projections of the companies that are operating in the province today.

So 25 cents went for smelting and transportation costs. Also, 45 cents in operating costs. I'd just like to remind the Minister that operating costs include salaries to people who are employed in the industry, to the purchase of fuel, supplies, equipment, hydro, all the taxes these people pay and the jobs that are created as a result of that expenditure of 45 cents out of each 100 pennies.

Next we have the impact of taxation, both federal and B.C. At that time, the impact of taxation on the mining industry was to take 13.7 cents in total taxes out of every dollar. It was split up this way: the B.C. mining tax took 3.8 cents, which is an effective rate of 12.75 per cent; B.C. corporation tax accounted for 3.6 cents at 12 per cent; and federal income tax accounted for 6.3 cents at a 21 per cent rate. So the effective tax rate right there on $1 worth of copper ore was 45.66 per cent. The income that was left to the company at that point is represented by these 16 pennies.

Now I must remind the Minister that that income was used for debt retirement, it was used for exploration, expenses in the Province of British Columbia, it was used for development, and it was used to pay a dividend to shareholders in the company, if a dividend, in fact, was paid. Then if the dividend was paid, of course, the dividend would be taxable in the hands of the shareholder.

That's where the money went prior to Bill 31.

Now let's take a look at what's going to happen if you adopt Bill 31 in its present form. I think it's interesting to take a look. Chart No. 2: Smelting and transportation costs will remain the same. Operating costs will remain the same.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: The price of copper at $1 a pound. Operating costs will remain the same, but royalties,

[ Page 4039 ]

Mr. Minister, will go up to 20.75 cents out of each dollar.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You should have come around to my office, I'd have made you a better graph than that.

MR. SMITH: Would you? Well, I think this is fairly symbolic of what is happening in the industry. This graph, incidentally, is prepared on the basis of taxes as we know it in the Province of British Columbia, but before federal taxes, as proposed in the federal budget, are implemented because we don't really know what might happen there.

They say they're going to implement those taxes, and there's certainly a fight, you'll have to agree, between the provincial government and the federal government as to what revenue you're going to share and on what basis. I don't intend to get into that discussion this afternoon.

But assuming a gross value for copper of $1 a pound: we have that much going into the coffers in royalties; we have the B.C. mining tax, the B.C. corporation tax, and the federal corporation tax. And because there's a credit, the B.C. mining tax will now take 1.18 cents. Corporation income tax to the B.C. government will take 1.11 cents out of the dollar, and federal corporation income tax will only take 1.94 cents.

Royalties in taxes to the B.C. government are now increased to 23 cents, instead of 7.4 cents. Federal income taxes are reduced from 6.3 cents to 1.94 cents as a result of the off-set.

Income, after tax, to the producer is just over 5 cents. Company return on investment — that isn't a return on investment, Mr. Minister, as you know. Company return on investment, 5.2 cents. It's too low to provide for additional funds for exploration and development, and it's too low to pay any dividends of consequence. So what happens in the Province of British Columbia? Well, at that point, exploration stops.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: You know, I thought enough had been said about the profit pictures of some of these corporations for the Attorney-General to take a serious attitude in his comments rather than a frivolous one.

What happens? I'll tell you what happens: exploration stops in the Province of British Columbia. They don't retire the debt that is already created and there's no money left for reinvestment in exploration or expansion of the industry. In other words, we have a stagnation and a complete stop in the mining industry in this province because, now, Mr. Minister, with the implementation of Bill 31, the effective rate of taxation on that industry, basing copper on $1 a pound, is 83.26 per cent.

You've virtually eliminated the federal tax base, and that's a problem that you and your Minister of Finance are going to have to work out between yourselves and Ottawa.

But when you did that, you also eliminated the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia, and then who are the losers? It certainly isn't Ottawa to any great extent. It's the people in the Province of British Columbia who are dependent upon that industry for a living, and the government of this province who would like to share in whatever profits are obtained through the mining of resource areas in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you explain the Lornex profits?

MR. SMITH: I'm not talking about Lornex. Who said anything about profit? At 5.2 cents, basing copper at $1 a pound, do you call that a profit?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Now, Mr. Minister, let's take a look at what's going to happen if you combine your new rate of royalty and mining with the impact of the proposed federal taxation. Once more we have the same transportation and smelting costs, the same operating costs. B.C. royalty is going to take a bite of 20.75 cents out of every dollar, with copper at $1 a pound. B.C. mining tax, B.C. corporation tax, and federal income tax….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Who was the artist?

MR. SMITH: It's pretty good, isn't it?

As a result, we go through 25 cents out of each dollar for smelting and transportation, 45 cents out of each dollar for operating costs. B.C. mining tax takes 3.8 cents out of each dollar, B.C. corporation tax takes 3.6 cents, federal corporation tax takes 7.5 cents at 25 per cent. B.C. royalties and taxes are now 28.15 cents, and total royalties and taxes are now 35.65 per cent. Do you know what you've done, Mr. Minister? You've just placed the mining industry in a position so that the effective rate of tax is 118 per cent of the revenue they will receive.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you take 118 per cent of 100?

MR. SMITH: Now you're getting the point, Mr. Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Now you're getting the point.

[ Page 4040 ]

MR. SMITH: Maybe you're starting to get the message. In other words….

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I completely forgot about you for a moment, and I must apologize for doing that. But the Minister has started to get the message.

In other words, the impact of the taxation and the royalties that you have suggested is not only punitive, it's going to remove the industry from the Province of British Columbia, because there's nothing left.

As a matter of fact, at that point, there's a loss of 5.65 cents on every pound of concentrate mined in the Province of British Columbia. I think the six pennies there that represent that….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Yes, you know, they are pennies.

MRS. JORDAN: Copper. You know, the mineral.

MR. SMITH: I think the colour is symbolic, Mr. Minister, because those pennies are painted red. In other words, when you get into a deficit position, the company goes into the red.

There's also the connotation for the colour of red with respect to the type of legislation that we have seen come before this House, including Bill 31. That is the day, Mr. Minister, as that graph illustrates, the mining industry folds up in the Province of British Columbia, tries to recoup what they can in the way of losses and write off forever additional exploration and additional mining in this province.

Now if that's your intention, you're on the right track. You're on the right track because you will put these mines in a position of cancelling out, not only in their profits, but of ever operating on an effective basis in this province. That's a sorry day for British Columbia.

When you combine this type of legislation with what is going on in the forest industry and the manner that the provincial government is moving, through the creation of Crown corporations, industry in British Columbia is down the tube. If that is what the Minister wants, he is certainly approaching the matter in the right way. He is certainly going in the right direction if this is what he really wants to do to the Province of British Columbia.

I say to you, Mr. Minister, that you're not going to create more revenue for the Crown in the long term or even in the medium or short term. You are going to end up losing millions of dollars of revenue which you could have received for the benefit of people if you would have approached the matter on a fair and equitable basis.

No industry I have talked to or that I have seen reported has indicated that they do not want to pay taxes if they make a profit. They are prepared to do that and share equitably with the people of the province. They do object to punitive taxation, and they do object strenuously to legislation which spells the end of their business and their investments in this province.

There are 50,000 jobs affected which are directly involved and probably 200,000 people who are closely related to the industry. You have whipsawed the industry with this bill, and you know it. You say that the mines were never lost and that the metal will stay in the ground — and that is probably true. It doesn't have to be mined; you'll leave it there for another generation. But remember that when you do that, you also leave in the ground the potential of revenue to the Crown which will help to provide for people services in this province.

If you were the people's government, which you claim to be, you would withdraw this bill. Take a look at the whole industry; listen to some of the people who are involved, the little people as well as everyone else. Call upon the technical advice available to yourself and remove the super royalty you think you are going to get from the industry in this province.

You may fool a few people with this bill; you may deceive them into thinking they are going to receive a large amount of revenue and, from that revenue, greater services in the Province of British Columbia. But the only ones you are deceiving right now are yourselves.

I say withdraw the bill. Bring it back in a form the industry can live with and which will provide continuing benefits for everyone in this province. Stop fooling the people of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, because that's what you're doing when you indicate to them that you will return great benefits through the taxation levels you have indicated in this bill. You still have time to do it, and you would be doing a great service to everyone in the Province of British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This debate has been very interesting. I didn't expect that I would reach this point at this time. It seems to me that efforts were put forward to try and convince me that royalties are a bad thing when, deep down, many of them do not believe that themselves, even in spite of the fact that they have been speaking on behalf of the mining companies.

I would like to go back over some of the remarks which have been made. One of the remarks made was

[ Page 4041 ]

that we should get the ore out of the ground as quickly as possible so that we might beat the finding of ore someplace else. Somebody said that we've got a lot of ore in the bottom of the ocean, all ready there to be taken at any moment, and that if we go to that extent, we would lose out because we would have to leave all our resources in the ground.

It puts me in mind of a few years ago when we were building the Columbia River dams. At that time, before the treaty was drawn up, the leader of the Social Credit Party (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) stated that if we didn't hurry up and get these dams built and get this money from the United States, we would lose out to atomic energy, that the hydro development would mean nothing any more.

But we know now that hydro development for electricity is a prime development, and that those people were wrong in their assumption that they had to hurry up in order to get that out, in order to develop the hydro plant before the atomic energy took over.

I would just like to quote from Mining Engineering of April, 1974. They talk about off-shore mining. This is what it states, and I quote:

"It is estimated that it would take them 11 to 19 years for more successful ventures to reach operational levels."

They're speaking of taking the manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean. Then they go on to state:

"However, in the context of manganese nodules, the dramatic copper impact we see from the world metals point of view becomes very insignificant because of the small expected total copper production from nodules and the continued projections of market growth."

Now where does the argument come in that these are so rich in copper? I further quote:

"The development and expansion of the mineral production of the four major metals of interest have been estimated in terms of world demand by 1980, and show roughly a doubling of nickel and copper demand and almost a doubling of manganese and cobalt demand.

"Based on our assumptions, if there were three mining operations on stream at that time, you could consider ocean mining highly successful. But what if we have vastly understated progress and incentives as far as the economics of the developing countries are concerned? In the area of broadest potential world impact copper does not offer much prospect of damage from nodules.

"Even if 50 operations were on stream by 1980 we would see that only approximately 10 per cent of the copper demanded by that time period would be provided from ocean sources. Excellent and real advantages in technology notwithstanding, there is no set of conditions that we foresee to yield much change from this conclusion.

"Of course, the unlikely possibility of having 50 mining units on stream at this time period has been shown."

That's the story of the amount of copper that we would hope to receive from the bottom of the ocean — and that is so rich.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now the principle we've been discussing in regard to this bill has been whether it should be a royalty, whether the product that's taken out of the ground should be paid for as a product, or whether we should go to the other end and just tax those companies that make a profit. They say that they're willing to have an excess profit tax. That's the first time I ever heard that the companies were willing to accept an excess profit tax.

But by so doing you would be penalizing those companies that are efficiently operated and giving a bonus to those other companies that do not show a profit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But you are not taking the money for the products that you're selling. This is business. I can't understand why anybody under this system would deny the right to say to any company that if you buy a product you must pay for it, or if you get a product you must pay for it — and not give it away to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you'd gain corporate income tax.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We talk about the royalties. The royalty we are suggesting is 2.5 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year and the years after. This is the only basic royalty that is going to affect at all.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …and the reserves in the ground.

The incremental royalty. You're talking about an excess profit tax. The incremental royalty will take care of that, but it's taken at the start and it's not after the finished product.

We're kind of pikers. Granduc Mines takes 22.5 per cent, up to certain millions of tons. I'll read it out of this booklet here. It says:

"Copper produced 284. Stewart, B.C., leased October 1965 for 50 years to Granduc Operating Company. To receive royalty of 22.5

[ Page 4042 ]

per cent of net proceeds before deducting preproduction costs" — right off the top — "of lessees on the first 32 million tons of ore milled, 25 per cent thereafter."

Now, let me tell you, we're pikers when it comes to asking for royalties. That's right off the top; that's before they pay for any production costs at all in Granduc. When Granduc tells you that there's no money, that there are no profits — sure there are no profits because the development corporation, Granduc Development, has paid over to Granduc Corporation 22.5 per cent off the top. No wonder there won't be any profits for the shareholders.

You talk about encouraging exploration and these other things. "Bill 31 is going to discourage everything." Don't forget that the mining industry of the Province of British Columbia has used every avenue at their command to get everybody to lever against this bill.

Here's Can Pac. Can Pac makes an agreement. This is their agreement: a permit fee. Before you can get a claim from Can Pac, you have to pay a permit fee of $250. You've got to pay $2 per acre. You all howled when I raised the work requirement to $200 per claim.

Then they've got copper. They've got 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent royalties right off the top. If it's so awful, why don't you get up and tell this government that we should stop private-enterprise from doing these things? If it's going to destroy the mining industry and if it's going to leave the reserves in the ground, why don't you get up and fight this government and say we should be stopping these companies from allotting their claims in such a way that they are going to leave it in the ground. Don't tell me that there is any….

You talk about costs of exploration. I'd like to read you this:

"In lieu of the exemption, mining companies will be permitted an accelerated capital cost allowance of all eligible expenditures which are necessary to achieve production. That is, no income tax will be payable until the mining company fully recovers such expenditures.

"The automatic percentage depletion allowance will be terminated at the end of 1976 and it will be replaced by an earned percentage depletion allowance which is related to the amounts extended by a mining company on exploration development and the other eligible assets necessary to achieve production."

They don't pay any income tax on the cost of exploration; they deduct it. Don't tell me and cry for these mining companies that they're so hard pressed and that they can't pay anything off the top for the goods they receive.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: For the simple reason that they've been using this to badger this government into withdrawing Bill 31. That's the reason they've done it. They've used every lever they have at their command.

When the Liberal Party in Ottawa put that in the budget speech in Ottawa it was an assistance to the mining companies to give them a further lever to try and make us withdraw Bill 31. That's exactly what has happened. Don't tell me that these things don't happen. The Liberals came out with that right at the opportune time.

Don't forget that the mining association in this province was in contact with the Liberal Party in Ottawa before that. I'm quite certain the Liberal Party came out with that definition about royalties in the budget speech just to lever this government and to give you ammunition to fight it with in order to try and make us withdraw Bill 31.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can't you defend the bill?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm defending the bill.

There should be something paid for a non-replenishable resource, a one-shot resource. In the case of a private individual or company, they sublet mines to be developed and produced from and they charge for the product that's produced out of those mines. Then it should be morally right for the government to do that on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

[ Page 4043 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Motions and adjourned debates on motions. Adjourned debate on motion 32.

On motion 32. (See appendix.)

MR. CHABOT: Just a few words on this steamroller motion, the one that wants to ride roughshod over the historical rights of the opposition in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: This is a motion which attempts to revolutionize the procedures in this House. Despite the fact I pointed out last night to the dangers of abuse which exist in this motion, the government has not seen fit to initiate any safeguards in this motion to protect the rights of the representatives of the people in this assembly.

They fail to recognize as well that the time occupied within this assembly is historically that of the opposition. Yet they bring in this motion that can very easily trample the rights of the Members of the opposition.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Aren't you exaggerating?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Industrial Development says: "Aren't you exaggerating?" I want to tell the Minister of Industrial Development and Commerce and Trade and environmental and economic diplomacy that he doesn't understand. He is a new Member in this House. He is prepared to associate himself with those who want to trample the rights of the Members in this House. That's disgraceful, indeed.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: There is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) asking me if I am serious. That is a Member who has no respect for this assembly or proper attire within this assembly, coming in here in his shirt sleeves. (Laughter.)

I'll tell you, it is quite obvious to me that that party over there wants to use the Legislature as a tool rather than as a forum for the free expression of point of view. They don't understand that it has been the historical right for Members of an assembly to question government in the expenditure of people's dollars.

It was said many years ago by more eloquent people than myself about the question of where the power of the purse should rest. It was said way back, many years ago, in the parliamentary watchdog of Great Britain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arf, arf!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is most annoying and most disrespectful to parliament, really, that when I am discussing a matter as serious as this that some Minister is barking like a dog. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a full moon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would Hon. Members please refrain from barking? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The quote is:

"There is indeed another way of describing things according to which parliamentary control of expenditure is one of the control features of the constitution.

"The basis of this view is the history of parliament itself, where the power of the purse was parliament's main weapon in its long struggle to break the power of the monarchy and to establish its own independent authority.

"'The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country,' said Gladstone. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually acquired."

That's in an assembly such as this one. That's where we have our rights and that's where rights have been won: the right to question government on the expenditure of people's money. You're attempting to deny that right with the passage of this motion.

Gladstone also said in 1891:

"The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually acquired. If the House of Commons by any possibility lost the power of the control of grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison."

"That powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse — the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure."

We have seen in this parliament, since this government has come to office, a very serious erosion

[ Page 4044 ]

of the rights over the power of the purse. It is being eroded with commissions being given the outright authority to spend money without so much as by-your-leave of this assembly. We have seen where it has been necessary for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate certain sums of money to commissions without even so much as a by-your-leave from the executive council.

We have seen this serious erosion of the rights of the representatives of people to question government in its expenditures.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Like question period.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Shuswap says: "You have a question period." I thought I had covered that yesterday. Apparently he wasn't listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: The question period does not always bring about answers. You are very confined. The Member in this assembly is very confined in the way he can ask questions in the question period. It's very limited in its time as well and the scope in which questions can be asked.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not as limited as it used to be.

MR. CHABOT: But it does not bring forward the kind of questions or the kind of answers which people are seeking from their representatives. I said yesterday that some Ministers do attempt to give answers; other Ministers are more evasive.

What I am talking about is the protection of the rights of the Members of this assembly which I believe should be jealously guarded and for which I can see an attempt at eroding these rights in the passage of this motion.

This is a government that is attempting to lead the people of this province to believe that it is an open government. This is a government when in opposition that said it would protect the rights of Members of this assembly. Yet we've seen this terrible erosion of the rights of the private Members in this assembly.

How long have we debated private Members' bills and motions during this current session, the longest session in the history of the province? That open government, that protector of the rights of the little people, has deemed to allocate to the private Members of this House 10 minutes in the session which has lasted from the latter part of January until way on into June.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, 10 minutes. Do you feel that's ample, Mr. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)? The Member for Shuswap suggests that 10 minutes for Members of the opposition to discuss private Members' bills is sufficient for a session.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I suggest to you that that isn't what the standing orders specify. Yet the standing orders have been cast aside because of government expediency. That isn't the case in other parliaments. We look at the procedures in the House of Commons. Erskine May talks about private Members' time:

"Standing order 6 provides for 10 Fridays on which private Members' bills have precedence over government bills, and 10 other Fridays and four days other than Fridays until 7 p.m. upon which private Members' motions (and private Members' bills, in that order) enjoy a similar precedence. The succession of Fridays so allotted normally begins soon after the fourth Wednesday on which the House sits and continues without interruption, (apart from such Fridays as might be affected by Christmas, Easter and Whitsun adjournments)" — incidentally I don't know what Whitsun means — "until the number is completed.

"On the first six Fridays allotted to private Members' bills, precedence is given to second readings in accordance with the results of the ballot, on the last four Fridays however, bills are arranged upon the paper in the following order: consideration of Lords' amendments, third readings, consideration of reports not already entered upon, adjourned proceedings on consideration, bills in progress in committee, bills appointed for committee, and second readings.

"With exceptions just enumerated, precedence inter se of private Members' bills and motions is allotted by the method of the ballot, the procedure in holding which is explained among the items of business described in chapter XVI.

"The distribution of the 20 private Members' Fridays into 10 on which bills have precedence and 10 on which motions have precedence continued from session 1950-51 until session 1966-67, although it was not incorporated in standing order 6 until the end of the session 1962-63. In sessions 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 a sessional order was passed varying the distribution. Under these sessional orders private Members' bills were given precedence over government bills on 16 Fridays, and private Members' motions (and

[ Page 4045 ]

private Members' bills, in that order) were given precedence on four Fridays. The 16 'bill' Fridays have been divided equally, the first eight being those on which second reading have precedence and the remainder those on which the later stages as set out in standing order 6 have precedence. In session 1970-71 a sessional order divided the 20 Fridays into 12 bill days and eight 'motion' days. The provisions for the allocation of four days other than Fridays for the discussion of private Members' motions until 7 p.m. have not been varied by these sessional orders.

"In recent sessions an average of 73 hours of private Members' time has been devoted to the discussion of bills and an average of 31 hours to motions."

So we see in the mother of parliaments the kind of respect they have for private Members and private Members' bills and private Members' motions — in the House of parliaments which you so much cherish, Mr. Speaker, that you look up with awe because you constantly quote the parliamentary rules which govern the function of that parliament.

I think the time has come, and it is unfortunate this motion does not…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've convinced me. I'm voting for it.

MR. CHABOT: …take into consideration the rights of Members in this assembly to discuss private Members' bills and private Members' motions.

We look at the allocation of time…

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember the good old days.

MR. CHABOT: …the allocation of time regarding the estimates and the discussion of estimates. We find that there are going to be extremely serious limitations, limitations of approximately six and three-quarter hours for each and every individual estimate.

It is going to be extremely difficult, I find, to allocate that in a fair way — this extreme limitation that is being imposed on the people's business. The motion we are discussing at this time suggests that a Member has an opportunity of speaking for 30 minutes during the estimates of any department. When one looks at the membership in this House of 54 Members, and takes into consideration the fact that limitation of debate in estimates or discussion of estimates is 6¾ hours, we find each and every Member, if there is going to be a fair and equitable distribution of time, is limited to 7½ minutes per estimate.

If one Member takes 30 minutes to question the management or lack of management of a department such as the Lands, Forests and Water Resources portfolio, he in turn would be intruding on the time of another Member who has, if everyone takes their equal time, a limit of 7½ minutes per portfolio.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Seven and a half minutes. These are serious limitations being imposed on the Members of this assembly. The Ministers laugh when I talk about this, and they chide. They don't take seriously what I am saying. They don't care.

HON. MR. COCKE: Neither do you care.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Minister, I wouldn't be standing in my place and talking on this subject the way I am now if I didn't take this seriously. I'd let it pass if I felt, as you do, that parliament should be trampled, as you are attempting to do by this motion. I suggested to the committee, when I was in the committee, certainly certain limitations in certain areas but not in the estimates.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I was there at every meeting with the exception of one, or maybe two. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Or four.

MR. CHABOT: Would it have mattered, Mr. Speaker, whether I had been there or not with the kind of military regimentation in which those motions appeared on the floor?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: With the kind of regimentation in which they were introduced, the preconceived and prepared motions, the direction of that committee was established long before the committee was even established. The government knew full well where it was going. They were using that committee for its own opportunity to trample the opposition and its right to discuss the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is not overly concerned about the taxpayers and the rights of Members of this House to question the wisdom or lack of wisdom in the expenditure of those dollars. I'll tell the people of Shuswap that that Member here is not concerned. I'll tell them.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Hurray!

[ Page 4046 ]

MR. CHABOT: And all we can hear from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is, "Hurray."

He doesn't like being questioned. He doesn't like being here. We might ask some questions that might be embarrassing. That Minister doesn't like it. That Minister over there is the greatest violator of the oral question period in this House. I had hesitated before to pinpoint anyone but now when we see that Minister over there chirping away, attempting to ridicule our concerns of the kind of motion which we are discussing at this time….

What has happened to that pledge by that government to the people of British Columbia to have an open government?

MR. LEWIS: It's being fulfilled.

MR. CHABOT: What do you have to hide? Is there something you're ashamed of? Is there something that you don't want people to question you on? If there is, why don't you say so and we will resolve this, I am sure, without the necessity of attempting to become secretive and attempting to destroy the little bit of freedom that exists in this House.

HON. MR. LEA: You never answered one question when you were a cabinet Minister — not one! Shame!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, one of those Ministers over there said I never answered questions during my tenure as a Minister of the Crown. I answered a lot of questions during the estimates. Those are the kinds of questions you want to hide. Those are the kind of questions you want to restrict the right of Members to put in this House.

One has to look at what takes place. In the committee we did examine, in a cursory fashion, what takes place in the other parliaments but we didn't look at all the provisions of the other parliaments. Let's look at the Province of Quebec, for instance, in which there are limitations on the question of estimates. Certainly there are. The rules in Quebec are:

"When…a supplementary budget is tabled before the assembly, the study of the estimates for each department must be referred to the appropriate select committee. The government House Leader may then propose that the…estimates for a department forming part of the main budget or of a supplementary budget or the whole supplementary budget be studied in Committee of the Whole. Such a motion for referral cannot be debated or amended."

They have an opportunity to refer their estimates to a committee of the House outside the assembly in Quebec for scrutiny.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the Member has no respect for the orders of the House. He's being repetitious, as he brought that point up yesterday before he adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is entitled to read the actual rule. He didn't read it yesterday.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't read it. That's right, Mr. Speaker — I didn't read it yesterday. I made a brief reference to it. There appeared to be some doubts about the accuracy of what I was saying yesterday. I think it is only necessary….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let the Hon. Member proceed.

MR. CHABOT: We've established now, Mr. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) that in the Province of Quebec estimates are referred to a select standing committee for scrutiny by Members of the National Assembly.

"(2): A committee that considers a department's estimates forming part of the main budget shall report to the assembly within 45 days of their referral to it for consideration, or within seven days if it forms part of a supplementary budget."

We've never had the opportunity of seeing supplementary budgets here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what that means.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly I know what that means. You should have supplementary budgets here too with all the tinkering you've done with the budget this session. It was a fiasco. It was a sham debating the budget in this assembly this year. The Ministers were making statements that were going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars even though their estimates didn't show that these moneys were going to be expended. You understand that, Madam Minister of Education, I'm sure. I'm sure you understand that. You understand the anomaly there. They have 45 days in the House in Quebec to examine the estimates. What we are attempting to do here — 45 days. Their standing order 128(3) says:

"When a committee has studied a department's estimates forming part of the main budget for at least 10 hours or estimates forming part of a supplementary budget for at least three hours and has not been presented a report within the delay provided in paragraph

[ Page 4047 ]

2, it shall be deemed to have recommended the adoption of all the estimates referred to it. The secretary shall report accordingly. Where an entire supplementary budget has been referred for consideration to a Committee of the Whole,"

a delay of at least eight hours shall be allowed for this study.

"130 (1) When all the estimates of the main budget…have been considered in committee or when the delays provided for in standing Order 128 have expired, the reports of the committees shall be grouped into a single report which shall be tabled in the assembly by the Minister of Finance."

It may be taken into consideration at the next sitting. At the sitting where the report is tabled:

"A Member wishing to speak to an item of the budget must give notice thereof to the secretary, specifying in writing the matter he intends to raise; the secretary shall immediately send a copy of the notice to each parliamentary (House) leader of a recognized party."

I'm not going to debate the question of recognized parties but I do want to say, as I mentioned yesterday, that they have an escape valve there in Quebec. They have ample opportunity for Members in an all-party committee to examine the expenditures of the various departments. They are allocated 10 hours inside the House to debate again. That's far more reasonable — 10 hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hours.

MR. CHABOT: You're talking about the supplementary budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm talking about the main one.

MR. CHABOT: That's far more reasonable than what is taking place in this Parliament.

I suggest to you that the same thing happens in Ottawa. I suggest to you that the same thing happens in Ontario. An all-party committee has an opportunity of scrutinizing the various estimates. Then Members have the opportunity of debating them inside the House. Yet we are denied that opportunity here. I wonder why we shouldn't have that freedom of examination as well.

Even if you had the committee you would give ample opportunity — if you went to the committee stage — for Members of every party to question the various estimates. If that happened I would have no criticism of those kinds of restrictions that you are imposing on the estimates. Every Member of a party would have an opportunity to select the committee on which he wanted to sit and which would have an opportunity to question Ministers as well and various heads of departments on the expenditure of funds. But no — what do we see here in British Columbia from an open government? We say 135 hours and no more. There is no specified time for each and every estimate to be debated. Certainly not. If 135 hours has expired and only 8, 10 or 11 of the various portfolios have been debated, the others are taken as passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even one?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, even one. That's right, even one. It might be that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) might want to make flowery statements about the Minister of Agriculture for half an hour at a time. The Minister gets up and gives him a half-hour reply. Then he gets up again and praises the Minister for the hog assistance programme for another half hour and then the Minister replies to him again. That might take half an hour. Then the Member for Shuswap gets up and again makes flowery statements to the Minister about the Poultry and Egg Marketing Board and his attempt to get a poultry processing plant in the Shuswap area. This might take half an hour.

He is entitled to his half hour but in the meantime, while that Member for Shuswap is wasting the time which historically belongs to the opposition, maybe we find through our examination that there is no reason to question the Minister of Agriculture and that we are going to reserve this limited time that is being granted to us for the debate of other departments which we feel have not been managed as efficiently as the Department of Agriculture. Yet we will find that Member for Shuswap down there wasting the time of the House. He'll be talking about the poultry processing programme; he'll be talking about the milk subsidy programme.

How could we possibly occupy our time in debating the various estimates that might be alphabetically down the road when our time has been exhausted by people such as the Member for Shuswap in utilizing his 30 minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you mean this hypothetically only.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I'm using that as a hypothetical fear that I have.

MR. WALLACE: A hypothetical Member for Shuswap.

MR. CHABOT: But, Mr. Speaker, I have very serious reservations about this motion which we're debating because of the fact that we will not have an opportunity to discuss the $2 billion-plus budget. What have you got to hide? What are you ashamed

[ Page 4048 ]

of? Where is that pledge to the people not too long ago that you would act in an open fashion, that you would be an open government? I've never seen a more secretive government in this country than that government over there after slightly over 20 months.

No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that we should proceed with this motion. I think what should take place is that there should be an examination. Apparently the committee was all prepared with its motions; it was so well prepared that they didn't take into consideration the kind of escape valves that exist in other provinces as well as at the national government level.

They didn't take that into consideration, which is unfortunate, really, because we find, with their lack of research and their attempt to throttle the opposition, a motion, a most unfortunate motion, which is going to deny Members of the Legislative Assembly the right of scrutiny. There's nothing more basic, when you're representing people, than questioning the government on how their tax dollars are going to be spent.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) wants to know where my leader is. He's out fighting your form of government right now; that's what he's doing.

Mr. Speaker, the hour is getting late. I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the motion usually is that you wish to move the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House. I think you said "after today." We should stick to the normal words.

Motion approved.

Presenting petitions.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to suspend the rules of the House to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition of Mrs. Helen Shreves which humbly prays that this House will provide a remedy for those who are in need and a method of legal review.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia's report on limitations, project No. 6.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 4048A ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 3993 et seq.:

151 The Hon. David Barrett to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 151) intituled Assessment Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1: By deleting the definition of "assessment area".

Section 24 (5), line 2: By inserting, after the word "taxation," the words "unless ordered by the commissioner, ".

Section 28 (2), line 4: By adding, at the end, the words "determined under section 24."

Section 29 (2), line 4: By adding, at the end, the words "determined under section 24."

Section 35 (2), line 4: By adding, at the end, the words ", and, if possible, the date, time, and place for the hearing of that person's complaint."

Section 41: By inserting, after subsection (5), the following as subsection (6):

"(6) A member of the board shall be paid and is entitled to receive his reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses for his attendance to hear appeals or at any meetings of the board."

Section 43, lines 2 and 3: By inserting, after the word "remaining", the word "two"; and by deleting the words "so long as the majority remains".

Section 45, line 1: By inserting, before the words "Any one member", the words "Where directed by the board,".

Section 60 (1), line 1: By inserting, after the word "person", the words including a municipality,".

Section 66: By deleting section 66 and renumbering sections 67 to 77 as sections 66 to 76.

The following amendments are referred to on page 3997 et seq.:

85 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 85) intituled Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 8: By deleting the word "and".

Section 1, line 9: By adding, after the word "expenses;", the word "and".

Section 1, line 9: By adding, after line 9, the following words:

"(iii) money or other property entrusted to or received by a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee, in trust for another person;".

Section 1, line 13: By deleting all the words in lines 13 to 16, and substituting the following words:

"(ii) where a municipal official or municipal employee files a written disclosure, the clerk or secretary of the council of the municipal official's or municipal employee's municipality or school district, or of the board of the municipal official's or municipal employee's regional district, as the case may be; and".

Section 1, line 25: By adding, after line 25, the following words:

"'municipal employee' means a person who is employed or appointed by the council of a municipality or school district, or by the board of a regional district, and who is designated by the council or board, as the case may be, to be a municipal employee;".

Section 1, line 28: By deleting the words "or other".

Section 1, line 37: By adding, after the word "person", the words ", other than a municipal employee,".

Section 2: By deleting section 2, and substituting the following:

[ Page 4048B ]

"Requirement to make written disclosure

"2. (1) At the time a person accepts a nomination for election to office as a Provincial official or municipal official he shall make and file a written disclosure with the person with whom he is required to file his nomination papers.

"(2) Forthwith after receiving a written disclosure under subsection (1), the person who received the written disclosure shall send it to the appropriate disclosure clerk.

"(3) Every person who is a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee shall make and file, between the first and fifteenth days of January and of July in every year during which he is a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee, a written disclosure.

"(4) Every person who becomes a public employee or municipal employee shall make and file, not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month during which he becomes a public employee or municipal employee, a written disclosure.

"(5) Subject to subsection (7), every person who ceases, for any reason other than his death, to be a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee shall make and file, not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month during which he ceases to be a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee, a written disclosure.

"(6) Subject to subsection (7), every person who is, on the first day of September, 1974, a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee shall make and file, not later than the fifteenth day of September, 1974, a written disclosure.

"(7) Subsections (5) and (6) do not apply, in respect of the years 1974 and 1975, to a municipal official who, before the fifteenth day of September, 1974, files with the appropriate disclosure clerk a written notice of his resignation effective before the thirty-first day of December, 1974, and of his intention not to accept a nomination for election to office as a municipal official during the year 1974.

"(8) Nothing in this section requires a person to file more than one written disclosure during any one month."

Section 3, line 19: By adding, after the word "official", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 3, line 2 1: By adding, after the word "official", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 3, lines 24 and 25: By deleting the words "for which the municipal official is elected", and substituting the words "or school district for which the municipal official is elected, or the municipal employee is employed or appointed,".

Section 3, line 26: By adding, after the word "official", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 3, line 30: By adding, after the word "official", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 3, lines 32 and 33: By deleting the words "for which the municipal official is elected", and substituting the words "or school district for which the municipal official is elected, or the municipal employee is employed or appointed,".

Section 3, line 34: By adding, after the word "official", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 3, line 42: By deleting the words "or public employee," and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee,".

Section 3, line 45: By adding, after the word "employee, " the words "or municipal employee,".

[ Page 4048C ]

Section 3, line 49: By adding, after the word "by", the following words:

"a statement, in such form as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe, setting out

(c) the name of every subsidiary, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Companies Act, of the corporation;

(d) the type of business ordinarily carried on by the corporation or by a subsidiary, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Companies Act, of the corporation;

(e) the description and location of land in respect of which the corporation, a trustee on its behalf, or a subsidiary, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Companies Act, of the corporation, holds an ownership interest or has entered into an agreement under which he is entitled to acquire an ownership interest;

(f) the name of the creditor in respect of every debt, except a debt of less than five thousand dollars and payable in full in less than ninety days, in which the corporation, or a subsidiary, within the meaning of section I (3) of the Companies Act, of the corporation, is a debtor; and

(g) the name of every other corporation in which the corporation, a trustee on its behalf, or a subsidiary, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Companies Act, of the corporation, holds one or more shares."

Section 3, lines 50 to 55: By deleting lines 50 to 55.

Section 3, lines 57 and 58: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 3, line 61: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 3, lines 63 and 64: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 3, line 69: By deleting the words "or public employee," and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee, ".

Section 3, line 70: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 4, line 5: By deleting the words "subsection (3) and sections 8 (3) and 9 (2)," and substituting the words "subsections (3) and (4) and sections 8 and 9, ".

Section 4, line 6: By adding, after the word "employee", the words "or municipal employee".

Section 4, line 12: By adding, after line 12, the following words:

"(4) Upon receipt of a written disclosure filed under section 3 by a municipal employee, the disclosure clerk shall send a copy of the written disclosure to the mayor, aldermen, and members, as the case may be, of the municipality, district, or board of school trustees responsible for the employment or appointment of the municipal employee."

Section 6, lines 1 and 2: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 7, line 1: By adding, before the word 'For", the number "(1)".

Section 7, line 4: By adding, after line 4, the following words:

"(2) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the Province to

(a) publish in the Gazette; or

(b) send to such Government agents as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may designate,

every written disclosure filed by a Provincial official.

[ Page 4048D ]

"(3) When the Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes a direction under subsection (2) (b), the provisions of section 4 (1) respecting the disclosure clerk apply to every designated Government agent."

Section 8, line 2: By deleting the words "or public employee;" and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee;".

Section 8, line 8: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 8, line 12: By adding, after line 12, the following words:

"(4) Where a municipal employee is prosecuted under subsection (1), the disclosure clerk, upon the request of the court, shall send to the court the written disclosure of the municipal employee.

"(5) Where, in a prosecution under this section, it is alleged that a person was a trustee on behalf of a Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee, the onus is upon the Provincial official, municipal official, public employee, or municipal employee to show that the person was not a trustee on his behalf.

"(6) Where a public employee or municipal employee is prosecuted under subsection (1), the court may, in its discretion, make public all or part of the public employee's or municipal employee's written disclosure."

Section 9, line 2: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 9, lines 7 and 8: By deleting the words "or public employee", and substituting the words "public employee, or municipal employee".

Section 9, line 8: By adding after the word "employee's", the words "or municipal employee's".

Section 9, line 14: By adding, after line 14, the following words:

"(3) Where an application under subsection (1) is made in respect of a municipal employee, the disclosure clerk, upon the request of the court, shall send to a court the written disclosure of the municipal employee.

"(4) Where a public employee or municipal employee is prosecuted under subsection (1), the court may, in its discretion, make public all or part of the public employee's or municipal employee's written disclosure."

Section 10: By deleting section 10, and substituting the following:

"Municipal employees

"10. The council of a municipality, or the board of school trustees or of a regional district may, by by-law, designate any person employed or appointed by it to be a municipal employee for the purposes of this Act."

"Commencement

"11. This Act comes into force on the first day of August 1974."

85 Mr. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 85) intituled Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 30: To amend the definition of "municipal official" appearing in section 1 by adding the following words after the word "Act;" in the thirtieth line:

" ; or

"(iii) a member of the Board of Directors of a Regional Resources Board or a Community Resources Board constituted under the Community Resources Act, "

[ Page 4048E ]

85 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 85) intituled Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4: To amend section 4 by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsections:

"(1A) For the purposes of section 4 (1) a written request shall be in the form of an affidavit bearing the witnessed signature and address of the applicant for inspection of a filed written disclosure and specifying the reasons for the application.

"(1B) Any person in respect of whom a written disclosure is filed may, by request to the disclosure clerk with whom his written disclosure is filed, inspect the affidavits of those persons who have inspected his written disclosure."

Section 4, subsection (1), line 2: To amend subsection (1) of section 4 by inserting after the word "upon" in the second line the word "written".

Section 8, subsection (1): To amend subsection (1) of section 8 by adding after clause (b) the following words:

"or any person who

"(c) for frivolous or malicious reasons or for personal financial gain, applies to inspect or inspects a written disclosure,".

85 Mr. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 85) intituled Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, to amend as follows:

Section 9, line 1: By adding, after the word "application", the words "by the Attorney-General".

The following amendments are referred to on page 4015 et seq.:

141 The Hon. Lorne Nicolson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 141 ) intituled Strata Titles Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1 (1):

(a) By inserting, after the definition of "minister", the following definition:

"'municipality' does not include a village municipality;".

(b) In the definition of "owner-developer", by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (ii) and all of paragraph (iii).

(c) In the definition of "purchaser", by adding, at the end, the words ", or any person whose business includes the development, sale, or management of real property to whom the owner-developer has transferred any right, title, or interest in the land included in the strata plan, unless that person personally occupies the strata lot;".

(d) In the definition of "special resolution", by deleting all the words after the word "by-laws," and substituting the words "who may vote on the resolution in person or by proxy;".

Section 3 (1):

(a) By inserting, after clause (g), the following as clause (h):

"(h) in respect of a strata plan that is not entirely for residential use, have endorsed upon it a schedule that is acceptable to the Superintendent of Insurance at the time of filing the prospectus under the Real Estate Act specifying the number of votes allocated to each non-residential strata lot and that, in the opinion of the Superintendent of Insurance, provides an equitable relationship between

(i) individual non-residential strata lots; and

(ii) the non-residential strata lots as a group and the residential strata lots as a group;".

[ Page 4048F ]

(b) By relettering the present clauses (h) and (i) as clauses (i) and (j) respectively.

Section 4 (1), line 1: By inserting, after the words "Where a", the word "proposed".

Section 4 (3), lines 1 and 2: By deleting the word "not"; and by deleting the word "unless" and substituting the word "if".

Section 5 (5), line 2: By deleting the word "final".

Section 11 (1), line 5: By deleting the words "or finance." and substituting the words "finance, or other matters affecting the security for the mortgage.".

Section 13 (2), lines 4 and 5: By deleting the words "release of those interests or estates in respect of the land comprised in" and substituting the words "giving of".

Section 17 (6), line 2: By inserting, after the word "First", the words "or Second".

Section 22 (4), line 1: By deleting the word "owner" and substituting the word "vendor".

Section 24 (7): By deleting subsection (7).

Section 24 (12), line 2: By inserting, after the word "enforced", the words "with the leave of the Court".

Section 24: By renumbering subsections (8) to (13) as subsections (7) to (12).

Section 26 (1), line 2: By deleting the word "quorum" and substituting the words "number of owners"; and by inserting, after the word "present", the words "in person or by proxy".

Section 26 (2), line 10: By deleting the words "a quorum" and substituting the words "the number of owners present"; and by inserting, after the words "section 1 or", the words "the quorum as set out".

Section 39 (1), line 1: By inserting, after the word "each", the word "residential".

Section 50 (1) (a), line 3: By adding, at the end, the words "and complying with section 66 (3) at the time of the amalgamation;".

Section 51 (1):

(a) In the definition of "lessee", by inserting, after the word " 'owner' ", the words "or 'purchaser' ".

(b) In the definition of "owner-developer", by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (ii) and all of paragraph (iii).

Section 52 (c) line 1: By inserting, after the words "term of the", the word "ground".

Section 66 (2):

(a) By deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following as subsections (2), (3), and (4):

"(2) Where a strata plan has been deposited with the Registrar under the Strata Titles Act repealed by this Act, herein referred to as the 'former Act', the following provisions apply:

(a) For the purposes of this Act, 'unit entitlement' means the unit entitlement of the strata lots as established by section 4 (1) of the former Act, insofar as it determines

(i) the quantum of the undivided share of the owner in the common property, including the quantum of such share upon destruction of the building; and

(ii) the proportion payable by each owner of contributions levied in respect of common expenses:

[ Page 4048G ]

"(b) The existing by-laws of the First and Second Schedules remain in full force and effect until added to, altered, or repealed; but such addition, alteration, or repeal shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) (a), where a strata plan becomes part of a phased strata plan pursuant to section 50 of this Act, the strata corporation shall, at the time of amalgamation as required by that section,

"(a) amend its schedule of unit entitlement in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

"(b) adopt a schedule of value as required by section 3 (1) (g) of this Act; and

"(c) adopt by-laws in accordance with section 17 of this Act, which shall be the by-laws of the phased strata plan, and file the material required by clauses (a), (b), and (c) with the Registrar at the time the material required by section 32 of this Act is filed.

"(4) Where an owner-developer who has deposited a strata plan under the former Act has not sold or entered into any agreement to sell any of the strata lots in the strata plan, he may elect to amend the prospectus filed under the Real Estate Act, if any, and the strata plan to conform to the Real Estate Act and this Act, and, upon the approval of the Superintendent of Insurance and the Registrar, the strata plan may be amended accordingly."

(b) By renumbering the present subsection (3) as subsection (5).

First Schedule:

(a) section 2 (f) line 2: By inserting, after the word "doors," the word "balconies,"; and by deleting the words "but including roof and balconies)" and inserting a bracket after the words "strata lot".

(b) section 25, line 2: By inserting, after the word "owner", the words "or mortgagees".

(c) section 49: By deleting the section and substituting the following:

"49. Where a strata plan consists of more than one type of strata lot, the common expenses shall be apportioned in the following manner:

"(a) Common expenses attributable to one or more type of strata lot shall be allocated to that type of strata lot and shall be borne by the owners of that type of strata lot in the proportion that the unit entitlement of each such strata lot bears to the aggregate unit entitlement of all such types of strata lot:

(b) Common expenses not attributable to a particular type or types of strata lot shall be allocated to all strata lots and shall be borne by the owners in proportion to the unit entitlement of their strata lots."