[ Page 4049 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 4049

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4051

Community Resources Act (Bill 84). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

On section 2 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4051

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Mr. Wallace — 4051

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4051

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

On section 9 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

On section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

Amendment to section 13.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

On section 16.

Mr. Gibson — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

On section 17.

Mr. Gibson — 4053

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4053

On section 20.

Mr. McClelland — 4053

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4053

Mr. Gibson — 4053

Mr. Schroeder — 4054

Amendment to section 22.

Mr. Gibson — 4054

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4054

On section 22.

Mr. Wallace — 4054

On section 24.

Mr. Wallace — 4055

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4055

Mr. Schroeder — 4057

Amendment to section 25.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4057

Mr. Schroeder — 4057

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

On section 28.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

On section 32.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

On section 36.

Mr. Schroeder — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

Mr. Wallace — 4059

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4060

Amendment to section 39.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4060

Mr. Wallace — 4060

On section 39 as amended.

Mr. Schroeder — 4060

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4061

Amendment to section 40.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4061

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4061

Amendment to section 43.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

On section 43 as amended.

Mr. Schroeder — 4062

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Amendment to section 44. —

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

On section 44 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4062

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Amendment to section 55.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4062

Mr. Wallace — 4062

Mr. Schroeder — 4063

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

Amendment to section 56.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

Amendment to section 58.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

On section 59.

Mr. Rolston — 4064

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

On section 60.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4064

Amendment to section 60.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

Amendment to title.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

Report stage — 4064

Mineral Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 48). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4065

Mr. Smith — 4065

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4065

Coal Act (Bill 92). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4065

Mr. Smith — 4066

Mr. Gardom — 4066

Mr. Gibson — 4067

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4067

Prospectors Assistance Act (Bill 94). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4067

Mr. Fraser — 4068

Mr. Gibson — 4068

Mr. Kelly — 4069

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4070

Division on second reading — 4071

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 132). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4071

Mr. Smith — 4071

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 3 1). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4074

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

         Introduction of bills.

         Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 105.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT
(continued)

MR. G. F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I was glad to see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) standing up there. I hope he says more in closing the debate than he did in opening it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I assure you that it will not be four hours.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe just a few minutes explanation of the bill, though, instead of the 120 seconds. That would be helpful.

I just want to say one or two things about the bill on second reading. I don't have a great deal to say. To me, Mr. Speaker, the problem with this bill is a problem of supply. The Attorney-General has been nodding at that all through the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm just tired.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, the government hasn't been doing very much about supply. I've been asking the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) for several days now at one time or another whether he was prepared to find something out about the supply situation on rental housing in this province, because there are already very clear indications that the policies of the government so far have not only been increasing supply but decreasing it.

In the absence of the Minister of Housing or the Attorney-General doing any survey of available rental accommodation, the B.C. Rental Housing Council has done one. I don't know how good the numbers are, Mr. Attorney-General. I'd love to have official government figures in this regard, but the Minister of Housing tells us that that's just the last thing he is going to do. He's too busy to develop figures on this kind of area. He's not a statistics department, he says.

We have to at least take a look at these kinds of figures to see what validity they have.

The B.C. Rental Housing Council circulated a questionnaire and they feel that their results are pretty good and complete. The respondents have been responsible, they say, for creating something over 47,000 rental suites in B.C., of which they manage about 16,000 today.

They have discovered, as far as their respondents are concerned, that as a result of the new provincial legislation — not only this Bill 105, but the interim rent freeze — that there has apparently been a cancellation of plans for rental suites in recent weeks amounting to about 6,400. These are suites that would have been completed or at least started in 1974. And 6,400 suites would have been pretty helpful in the apartment crisis in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. At the moment I'm puzzled as to whether you are relating this somehow to the Act or to the general need of housing. What is the relationship between the principle of this bill and what you are talking about?

MR. GIBSON: What I should have said first, and I thank you for reminding me, is that the essence of this bill is rent control, and that one of the inevitable consequences of rent control is that provision of housing by the private sector is likely to decline.

So we have on the one hand a programme — of which the Minister of Housing is so proud — of some 2,000 new units that are going to be built by him; but that doesn't do much for the 20,000 rental units that should be built in this province this year.

The relation, Mr. Speaker, in other words, is to the detrimental effects that rent control has on the provision of rental housing suites; and Bill 105 is, among other things and in its essence, a rent control bill.

So those are the figures we have in the absence of government figures — which, as I say, I do wish that the government had seen fit to provide. I do wish they had seen fit to make some kind of survey of that kind.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate, Mr. Premier, that detail can be answered in committee. I just want to make these broad comments about housing supply right at the moment.

Now, these same respondents to this survey were caught by the legislation with around 1,600 suites already under construction and about 650 in the planning stages for a total of 2,250 that are in the works and on stream. A lot of these, I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, are being converted to strata title. But they are at least suites being built.

But out of all these people surveyed, who have within the last few years built around 48,000 suites and are currently managing 16,000 suites, the only new suites they are going to start, according to this survey, in the near future is the total of 200 referred

[ Page 4050 ]

to by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) the other night.

It is to me a clear reflection of the government policy that we have this kind of situation where we have the government building a few rental units and the private sector, because of its fear of the government and its concern as to what will happen if they do build any new suites, cutting right back.

This is going to be another case where the government is going to come in and say that the private sector has failed and that we're going to have to go ahead and supplement what they should have been doing; and maybe the 2,000 suites the Minister of Housing is so proud of will go to 10,000 suites by the end of this year.

Obviously, something is going to have to be done. But the point is that that wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't chosen to go down this road.

What did the Minister of Housing say earlier on this year? The Minister of Housing isn't listening. He should be, because here is what he said: "Vancouver's housing shortage should be solved by building more housing, not imposing rent control." The Housing Minister said that.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, could we have some order over there? Maybe that Minister of Housing would choose to stand up and respond to that statement he made some months ago that rent control is not the answer.

Does that Minister support that bill?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's a very questionable thing. The government the other night was laughing at Tory controls, and then they're bringing in their own controls over rental housing — which is acting in an exactly opposite way to the kind of thing they would like.

They are discriminating against rental housing and against tenants in various ways such as the application of the capital tax which applies, of course, only to tenant-occupied apartments, not to owner-occupied homes.

I'm still not sure what the situation is on the fuel rebate, Mr. Attorney-General. Maybe you could straighten that out. That's going to be a help to tenants as well as homeowners. I'm not clear on that as yet. Next session? Well, maybe you're relying on the fact that there's not much heating fuel used over the summer. Maybe the next session is going to be in the fall. Maybe that's a clue.

But the whole business of rent controls, I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, is in the long run going to cause more problems than it raises. The Law Reform Commission was broadly against rent controls. As the Attorney-General knows, they didn't feel themselves competent to pronounce definitely on this issue of government policy. But they did find themselves in agreement with the Ontario Law Reform Commission of 1968 that stated that rent is an important element in the cost of living, but only one element.

Then it goes on to say about rent controls: "The wisdom of such control is something that requires a wide economic study and policy decisions going far beyond the powers of this commission as a law-reform body."

But they did stick their necks out a little bit, and they quoted with approval the writings of one Professor Donnison who said: "Governments should always seek other and more direct routes to their ends before resorting to rent control."

I'm not convinced that the government has done that, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're not convincing your own party.

MR. GIBSON: They had that kind of case, perhaps, on the interim rent freeze, but they sure don't have it as a long-term policy.

Another report on this was done by the National Council of Welfare on "The Low-Income Consumer in the Canadian Marketplace," which is a fairly pompous title for a thick report, but it does refer to rent control. It says:

"Another solution to the low-cost housing problem which is frequently cited, though infrequently applied in normal times, is rent controls. It seems like a tempting alternative: restrict profits derived from rents and keep prices within the range of the poor.

"Unfortunately, it is unlikely to work in the Canadian housing market except in a short-term situation where a large-scale expansion of the low-income housing stock is underway and the restraints are to apply only in a transitional period until the new supply system is in effect and the rental market is adjusted accordingly."

That is certainly not the situation we have in British Columbia right now, Mr. Speaker. We don't have any large-scale expansion of low-income housing stock. As a matter of fact, we have the most drastic shrinkage of rental housing stock in many, many years.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Stand up, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and give us your thoughts on this subject. We hear lots of sniping from the cabinet back benches and not much positive construction to these debates. Thank you very much.

I agree with their proposal that this bill is well debated during the committee stage but I think this

[ Page 4051 ]

point on rent controls has to be made at this stage. It is very likely to work exactly the opposite to the direction the government wants it to work. A year from now — the vacancy rate can't be any tighter than it is right now — the housing situation is going to be worse because the rental units required in this economy are simply not going to be provided because of the policies of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is a difference of opinion, of course, between the government and the Hon. Member. It is our opinion that the supply of rental accommodation under construction had been falling off for some time. At the same time the population increase, especially in the lower mainland area, has been phenomenal. In view of that, while not resorting to rent control, we thought we had to restrain abusive rent increases.

The kind of surveys you mention will be undertaken, mostly by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) but partly under the auspices of the rentalsman. He has that power under section 28 of the Act to encourage positively, by prescribing a fair return, the construction of new rental units. That power will be, I am sure, exercised because it is a social problem.

We will have to move in this field to protect people, Mr. Member. Already we have protected people in terms of our interim rent control stabilization. But if we left things to go just as they would float in the marketplace, with the population buildup and the shortage of accommodation which was there and would be there, then things would be very desperate indeed for the renting section of the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 105, Landlord and Tenant Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just ask the Minister the meaning of the word "principally." Does it mean over 50 per cent or what?

In section 2 it says: "…to benevolent activities principally supported by public subscription."

HON. MR. LEVI: We are deleting the whole section.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, on that point, Mr. Chairman, could the Minister explain what second thoughts the government had, causing them to delete this section?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mainly because I understood it created confusion out there among some of the charitable organizations. We deleted it in order that there would be no confusion.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. GIBSON: It was moving along rather quickly there.

At the end of section 6 (e), it suggests that the directors shall make annually to the Minister a report of the actual state of social services throughout the province. I am wondering if it is the intention of the Minister that this report should be tabled in the Legislature.

HON. MR. LEVI: Part of the annual report that we table is, in fact, the report of the Deputy Minister, who in this case is the director. So it is a normal procedure. It is in the annual report. You notice there is a letter from the Deputy Minister to me, stating that he attaches herewith a report. The information relating to community resource boards will be included in that.

[ Page 4052 ]

MR. GIBSON: Will this particular report referred to in section 6 (e) be included in that?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, it will be included in that. We have a number of divisions in that category.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 9 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: On section 9, Mr. Chairman, I am just not clear. The employee referred to in line 2 is appointed under section 5 and may be assigned to a regional board or community board. Who in the last analysis controls this employee and has the executive direction of this employee? Is it the regional board?

HON. MR. LEVI: The regional board or the community board, depending on which one.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. WALLACE: I would just like to comment on this section because I have already received complaints respecting the conduct of the election of members to the Vancouver regional board. I wonder if the Minister at this point has any comment to make on such part of section 12 which says the Minister may investigate complaints respecting the voting of money by a regional board or community board.

I raised a point in second reading that certain requests have been made of the Vancouver resource board that members of the board should be paid the same as an alderman in the City of Vancouver, which I believe is $600 a month. Is this the section under which the Minister might or might not have authority in this area, or is there another section of the bill?

It seems to me, relating to my earlier comment, that the board appears to have been set up way ahead of the legislation. We seem to be asking questions after the fact. Would the Minister care to comment?

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, Mr. Member, there are no people elected to the Vancouver resource board. Those are appointments. They are the people who are the representatives of the resource boards, and those appointed.

In respect to pay, there is a section which we are coming to under 26. We do not pay anybody except for reasonable expenses. I do not agree with what they did at the board there, and there was no commitment in the Act at any time. It is not my intention to pay anyone, except their reasonable expenses, if they have to travel, in the usual way. That is all.

As I said at the beginning, the Vancouver resource board is not an elected board; it is an appointed board.

MR. WALLACE: Just for clarification, has the actual motion which went before the Vancouver resource board finally reached the Minister's desk for a specific request for $600 a month? Was it stopped before it got that far?

HON. MR. LEVI: As a matter of information, they sent it to me but I told them at a meeting that that was not on. We were not proposing to pay people.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: Section 16 gives the Minister absolute, arbitrary authority in being able to require from time to time that the bylaws, rules or regulations of a regional or community board be revised, and in a manner satisfactory to him. I would ask him why, in view of his already broad powers under sections 14 and 15, he thinks it necessary to have this additional power to reach into virtually any act of any local board and change it to suit his convictions rather than theirs.

HON. MR. LEVI: One of the purposes of the board and the citizen involvement is for the board to be responsive to what is going on in the community.

In that case, if there may be an obvious conflict in terms of where there should be changes and there aren't, I think we would undertake to discuss with people and ask that certain things be changed. We are trying to be flexible here; these are not sweeping powers. Really, the function of the board is the

[ Page 4053 ]

community involvement. Now the boards change every two years.

For instance, it may be that there's a very specific need based on a kind of service which might be required. When we first came in there was and still is the very serious need for services related to young people.

There are one or two areas in the province that are not very responsive now to asking for that kind of assistance. I am not prepared to mention them, but we've had discussion with some areas about moving in this direction and taking advantage of the programmes we have — particularly the special services to children programme. There's some response from the community on that.

But it's not that sweeping a power; I don't agree, Mr. Member.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, you went so quickly…. I just wanted to ask the Minister: what is a region? Could he tell us what the regions are that he contemplates?

HON. MR. LEVI: The regions have not been defined. They will be discussed with the various community boards around the province. This is a process that will not be taking place, certainly, within the first year of operation of this Act. This is where we would put a number of local community resource boards together to go through a process similar to what's going on in Vancouver. The Vancouver resource board is in fact the Vancouver regional board, in the sense that there are a number of resource boards under it.

What it would do is to make the same kind of decision and deal directly with us for funding. At the moment we will be dealing directly with each resource board around the province.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister is saying then, that there will be, in effect, no regional boards for the first year, other than the Vancouver board and perhaps the capital area board.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me be more specific. I would not say that we would be moving toward regional boards before the end of this fiscal year.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): During second reading debate, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister if he would tell the House whether or not core services were still a part of his vocabulary, and whether or not they would come under the terms of the duties of these boards, and if, in fact, a municipal council would be bound to any core services which a regional board or a regional resource board decided were necessary in the community. And who would pay for them?

HON. MR. LEVI: Thanks very much for reminding me, Mr. Member. No, they are not now. Core services are not something that we are going to be discussing or insisting on. It's part of the process in which we will assume, in a gradual way, the responsibility and the cost for programmes.

I might say that one of the difficulties we've had, on closer examination, are the services that have been started and assisted by LIP or OFY and municipalities, and then a municipality decided to opt out. So I think what we want to do is go in a direction of boards really getting money from one source, then we don't get this kind of whipsawing process where they go to LIP or OFY or municipalities, then suddenly funding dries up and I have to go through what I did last week in terms of all of those LIP programmes. So, no, there will be no requirement by municipalities for core services.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Chairman. Will there be a definitive statement of some kind to the municipalities telling them what they're expected to pay for, and what you expect to take over, even on a gradual basis? This is so the municipalities have some method of budgeting, for one thing, because they really don't know where they stand now and I think they'd like to.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, there will be. I'm meeting on June 27 with all of the municipalities in the lower mainland area to discuss what kind of a timetable we have. We will be contacting other municipalities about this, and we will have a definitive statement to make. What I want to do is have the meeting on the 27th and see what kind of a format we will require to make a general statement.

MR. GIBSON: Section 20 (g), Mr. Chairman, notes that it's one of the purposes of a regional board to apportion funds among such community boards. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly: it is indeed their duty to apportion rather than to recommend to the Minister the apportionment he should make. The regional board has that authority to apportion, do they?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Member. The government's function is to set the financial guidelines and the general policy guidelines. We have

[ Page 4054 ]

a certain number of priorities. But we are not going to get into — that's one of the things we want to get out of — looking at individual programming. That authority will remain with the board.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, do I understand that right? I thought it was to be by regulation — that the amount of money to be apportioned for various social services was to be determined by regulation, and that the apportionment, as outlined in section (g) was only the apportionment of expenditures related to the operation of the board itself, and not really in the apportionment of social services. Did I understand that wrong or right?

HON. MR. LEVI: The boards outside of the Vancouver area will not be responsible at this time or for some time in the future for the delivery of or the inquiry into the social programmes delivered by the department. That is, they will not be responsible to look at the statutory services. We are only requiring them at the moment to look at the non-statutory services.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right.

MR. McCLELLAND: A little further Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman — will the department, through yourself, have any veto power at all on either expenditure or programmes if it becomes necessary?

HON. MR. LEVI: The answer is yes.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

MR. GIBSON: The thing that concerns me a little bit here, Mr. Chairman, is that while the Minister can exercise the power and authority of a regional board, until it's established, it says nothing about the responsibilities. I'm thinking in particular of the responsibilities such as under section 23, that at least once a year a public information meeting is required and so on.

I wonder if the Minister would accept just a minor amendment after the word, "authority" in the second line of section 22 — to say, "… the minister shall exercise for that reason the power and authority and responsibility." Just add those two words, "and responsibility."

Accordingly, I move that amendment.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

On the amendment.

HON. MR. LEVI: Take it easy, let me explain it.

One of the things is that if I have the responsibility then I'm going to be required to go just about to every region and appear at public meetings and explain certain processes. And very frankly, I just can't do that. It just isn't practical.

MR. GIBSON: Who's going to do it then?

HON. MR. LEVI: The intention of this section is that until we establish regional boards, I think I explained a little earlier, we will be dealing directly with the individual community resource boards about their funding. There will be this direct communication. Once they've set their priorities and that, they will come to us.

Later on, when we set up the regional board, then they will go to them. And as I said, we're not proposing to go into the regional boards, certainly in this fiscal year, at all — except what we have in the Vancouver area. We want to be able to look at the Vancouver area experience a lot longer.

MR. GIBSON: Then that requirement for a public informational meeting annually disappears, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that's wrong.

Amendment negatived.

On section 22.

MR. WALLACE: In regard to section 22, I just can't resist commenting that one of the fiercest debates we ever had in this House, presented and initiated and developed by the present government when they were in the opposition, was as to the tremendous power, the solitary power given to the Minister of the day, then one P.A. Gaglardi.

I think it's really interesting that just a moment ago the Minister stated in response to a question that he has veto over any decision of the resource boards. Here in section 22 we have the Minister taking the authority and power. And we keep coming back on that word "power" in every debate in this House. He has the power and authority to function in place of a regional board.

So I think it should just be in the record, Mr. Chairman, that while I certainly have great respect for this Minister, let's not obscure the fact that in terms of this legislation and in this section, and in other sections we've already debated, this Minister is having every bit as much power, if not more power, than the same kind of position which this government bitterly resisted when it was given to the former administration.

[ Page 4055 ]

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been kind enough to correct me as to the manner in which regional boards are created — the members are appointed. I just want to ask the Minister for clarification — how some of these appointments are made.

Now I realize that (a), (b), (c) and (d) make it very plain that they're appointed in various ways. But I had one particular contact on this issue by telephone and letter. It refers to one Mel Macdonald, who happens to be on the Vancouver resource board. I understand that he's the representative of the Federated Anti-Poverty Group.

I'm certainly very sensitive and willing to recognize that we should have the voice of the disadvantaged people on these boards. But I made some inquiries and I discovered — and it bothers me — later in the bill, and we'll come to the section, that the community resource boards involve the election of members who have to meet certain criteria.

The Minister will be bringing in the amendment where the person, to be elected to the Vancouver resource board, has to be of the age of majority, a Vancouver charter elector and qualified under the bylaws of the community board.

Now there seem to be two different standards here, Mr. Chairman. I'm referring back to section 24. I understand that Mr. Mel Macdonald came to Canada as a draft dodger. He came to Canada, as my information, as a draft dodger under sentence in the spring of 1969. He has obtained a degree in social work at UBC, but apparently he's not particularly keen to work. In fact, he's refused work and apparently is presently himself on welfare. He apparently is not a citizen; yet he's the chairman of the elections procedure committee of the Vancouver Regional Resource Board.

Now this apparent….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm stating….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is information which I've tried to check out, and as far as I'm aware…. I know the responsibility of my position in making these statements in this House. I've checked them out at more than one source, and I believe that these facts as I have described them are, in fact, accurate.

It seems to me that with the regional board having a greater authority and responsibility than each community board within the region, it would seem to me that the very least that should be met within the criteria of section 24 in regard to appointing individuals to the regional board should be these same criteria regarding voting rights as a member of the municipality, or in this case Vancouver.

As I've mentioned earlier, the Minister's going to make it mandatory for people seeking election to the community resource boards to be qualified as electors under the Vancouver Charter. I just wonder how it is that we have a person in this position of authority who, as far as one can determine, would not qualify to run for election on the community resource board; yet he has been appointed as a member of the regional board — in this case the Vancouver regional board.

I feel that there is enough confusion, generally speaking, in the minds of the public as to exactly what this piece of legislation will do, how these boards will function, how they're composed. I did mention in the debate on second reading that there had been a great degree of uncertainty and confusion regarding eligibility of people to become involved. Since then I've had these several phone calls relating in particular to this person, Mr. Mel Macdonald.

I gather that he has been discussed on the various radio hotlines in Vancouver. I wonder if the Minister would, first of all, answer the questions I've asked about this particular citizen. Secondly, could he tell us whether he feels that perhaps section 24 could be tightened up in various ways to at least make the requirement for membership by appointment on the regional board as strict, if not stricter, than eligibility for election to the community resource board?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just in respect to the man you were talking about: when we set up the interim board, we agreed that there should be a number of representatives. We agreed that two representatives from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group could be appointed. We didn't appoint them; they selected them. We then sort of appointed them. The Federated Anti-Poverty Group, which is an organized group, selected them.

The United Community Services selected a person that they put on there — as well as the parks board, school board, the health board and the city council.

I'm aware of some of the contentious nature of what was going on there. But we were not prepared to interfere. Those were the appointments made by a duly-constituted group of people. We weren't prepared to interfere in that.

Now the rest of the operation that took place is entirely in the hands of the Vancouver resource board. Again we were not prepared to get involved

[ Page 4056 ]

here. If we're going to talk about involvement and local people making decisions, I'm not about to go in there and make those kinds of decisions. We have now put out the eligibility and the procedures for people to be in to operate within this system. It seems to me that that kind of situation will not happen again anyway.

One of the questions, of course, which has come out during the debate on the eligibility has been the question of the large number of people who live in communities who are not citizens, yet do participate. Many people have been here some years who are not citizens. We have given some thought to this. But I am not prepared to go beyond what, for instance, the election Act says or any of the other Acts that cover eligibility. But that presumably will be the subject of some future debate at some time in this House about, as we get into local communities, whether we will be excluding people who are landed immigrants, who are citizens, who are taxpayers, from that kind of function.

But we are not prepared at this time to do anything about accommodating that. I think very much that that's something, first of all, in the area of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) under the election Act; and then, of course, there's the school boards Act.

So we've laid the basic requirements, and those requirements will be followed in terms of appointments. I can give you that assurance. Those are the requirements. The requirements for eligibility will be the requirements for appointment.

We now require that people live in the area if they're to be appointed to a regional board or the Vancouver resource board.

As is happened, during the interim session one of the Members did not live in the Vancouver area but was appointed by a group designated to have an appointee. So I'm trying to assure the Member and the House that the procedure for the eligibility to run and vote are the same rules that will be applied to the appointments that I make in terms of the…. And I can make three appointments.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the Minister for two further clarifications of what he has just said? I think perhaps that I either misheard what he said or he just reversed the words. I think he meant to say that the appointees would have to meet the criteria of eligibility at the regional level, such as the criteria that are met at the community level — in other words, in relation to being qualified as electors, and so on. I think, with respect, Mr. Minister, that you put it the other way around.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm sorry.

MR. WALLACE: The other point contingent upon that agreement by the Minister, then: would he not feel that it would be fair under section 24 to have an amendment just simply stating that anyone appointed by any one of the four mechanisms would have to meet such criteria as have to be met by anyone running for election to a community board?

That would really put in writing the assurance that the Minister has just given me. With respect, in section 24(2)(d) the Minister has made it clear that three are appointed by the cabinet, and apparently from this recent experience the Minister does not feel that it is right for him to reject any person put forward by, let us say, the anti-poverty group.

Now I personally would feel that the tremendous responsibility that devolves on any Minister of the Crown to make appointments to public boards is such that it would not be automatic that if a certain group puts forward a name, the Minister — whether this Minister of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) or any other Minister — would automatically appoint the person named by the particular group — in this case the Federated Anti-Poverty Group.

Certainly if this tends to be the practice, that the Minister concerned more or less automatically accepts the name given to him for appointment, I would think that it would be even more important that we have such an amendment to section 24.

If the Minister would consider it, I would certainly move such an amendment — although I don't have it written and signed — suggesting that the criteria for eligibility to be elected to a community resource board under section 40 should also apply to any person appointed under section 24.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'd like to draw the Member's attention to the amendments under section 25 in respect to the Vancouver resource board. The other thing is that in respect to other appointments those are the ones that I make as Minister. Nobody gives me a name which I accept. I will look at the appointments in terms of the kind of balance that might be needed in respect to a board and the kind of extra knowledge that might be needed.

But to answer your concern you will find under section 25 and the amendments that we have eliminated some of the problems that you have referred to.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief. I obviously misunderstood the Minister.

In other words, Mel Macdonald was not appointed under the provisions of section 24(d). Who appointed him then? Was it by one of the community boards established under (a), or by the mayor? I'm sorry, I'm just at a loss to know how this man Macdonald got the position that he has. From your earlier statement, Mr. Minister, I assumed that you had appointed him

[ Page 4057 ]

as one of the three that you have authority to appoint, but obviously not. So it has to be (a), (b) or (c), and I'd like to know which one.

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, we didn't have an Act. When we had the representations what we did was to ask for a representative of each school board, parks board, council and the health board, two people from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group and one person from the United Community Services. I would appoint three people. I did not appoint anyone. I have not appointed anyone to the board, and I was not intending to appoint anyone to the board until we proceeded with the legislation.

So Macdonald was one of the people that the federated anti-poverty groups asked to be on the Vancouver resource board. But you'll see that taken care of in the next section.

MR. SCHROEDER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, there can be no existence of any of these boards, no appointments to any position on those boards, until this legislation is passed. Whether Mr. Macdonald has any understanding of having a board position or not, the truth of the matter is that he cannot have any position on any board; and he is just acting in the interim until this Act passes this legislative body.

There are very few sections in this entire bill that we can support, but I do see a ray of light here in section 24, and I must commend the Minister in this one regard. At least he's got a little starch. He has been daring enough to have the appointments to these boards made one by each community board, and we assume that there will be more than one community board within each region.

So already we have at least more than two appointees under (a). We have at least one school board, perhaps two under each region, under (b). We would have two appointees at least under that section. We have two by the mayors of the municipality, which is a minimum of at least six members appointed at large, as opposed to three members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. I must commend you on that phase.

In any other committee, in any other commission, in any other board that has been established, in any other legislation that we have seen come through here in all the years I've been here, Mr. Minister, I have yet to see something like this, and I commend you for it. There is a little daring here.

Just one caution. I think the Minister is aware that in some areas we have joint community services being managed by community service boards already in existence. One of these areas is Chilliwack. I think that perhaps the model for the entire province could be taken from this core-services concept that we have in the Chilliwack and the Abbotsford areas.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that in the appointing, both of the regional boards and a little later in the community boards, we do not ride roughshod over the people who, some of them, have given seven, eight, nine, and up to 12 years of voluntary service to these community service boards. I would hope that at least in the appointees these people would be given due consideration as recognition for their work.

I would like to thank them publicly here and now for the services they have already rendered and commend them to this Minister for consideration for these appointments. Not only from among the community boards, not only from among the school boards, not only from among the mayors, but also I would trust that they would fall under consideration for these three appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

These people have given good service and I believe they can render good wisdom to the future community resource boards by virtue of their experience. I hope they will not be overlooked, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Member, they have two points of access. One is either to run for election on the board or, bearing in mind your recommendation, one or two could be appointed. The main thing, I think, is to look at the board to see if there is some other part of the community that needs to be represented. That's why I can then do that in terms of giving balance to the board with the three appointments.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Minister, I take hope from the fact that you say that one or two could be appointed. I would like to believe that of the number who have served there would be more than one or two who could be appointed. Not only that, but take the rich in experience. I would hope that this will not be an avenue used for the advantage of political appointments, but that people will be appointed on the basis of their ability.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

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

On the amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: On the amendment, I notice that we have increased the number to be appointed from among the council of the City of Vancouver. But we have deleted two members to be appointed — one by the Metropolitan Board of Health of the City

[ Page 4058 ]

of Vancouver and one by the board of directors of the United Community Services.

I would like to have an explanation as to what rationale was used to determine that these two areas should not be represented and that rather the Vancouver City Council should have one more representative.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the people on the regional board are all elected people; and in these two cases they were not elected.

MR. SCHROEDER: You mean appointed?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. They are elected in the first instance when they go to the school board, parks board and that kind of thing. The other two people are not.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Arising out of the remarks the Minister made on section 24, I would gather that once this legislation is assented to, what we have known as the Vancouver resources board, and what is a nullity today, disappears. Than there will be these appointments made as stipulated here, and they may be the same people who have been serving on an interim basis. Then you will be appointing three, not having to date exercised that right of appointment.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's quite right.

MR. SCHROEDER: Right, thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Can I take it from the Minister that there is some screening of names that are put forward to the Minister before he approves or chooses these appointments — that it is not simply a matter of the Minister in good faith having names suggested to him? Can we be assured that there is some screening mechanism by the Minister before he makes the appointment?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I can give that assurance. For instance, we've had very strong representations from Indian groups that one of the appointees might be someone from the Indian groups. We're giving very real consideration to that.

Then, of course, we presumably may get representations from other groups as well, but certainly there will be careful screening.

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the Minister could indicate if this was an oversight. This section makes provision for filling a vacancy in a regional board, but there doesn't appear to be any corresponding provision for filling a vacancy to the Vancouver resource board.

Now I appreciate that the Minister has the power to appoint in such an instance, but I wonder if that is an oversight.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, it would apply to the Vancouver board, Mr. Member, because it is a regional board, except that it's got a different name.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Section 28 approved.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Minister, on section 32 (1) (b): "To make, on behalf of a regional board any description of contract…." Could the Minister indicate why those words are used? Do they have full power of contracting on behalf of the board? I assume that that's what you indicate.

More importantly, in subsection (c) in the third line would you indicate what the security to be given by members of the board might be, and for what purpose? Are they to be bonded?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're in (b) now are you? Well, (b) relates to the ability of the board to enter into contract with respect to agencies, that kind of thing. What was it on (c)? Yes, that's the bonding.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So there will be a bonding provision.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

Sections 32 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

MR. SCHROEDER: On section 36 an automatic question is: under what authority was the south Vancouver community board established since no legislation has yet passed this floor?

HON. MR. LEVI: I didn't think we needed any, if you like, authority for that. I still have, under the powers of the Act that I am administering the department under, authority to make various grants

[ Page 4059 ]

to groups. I can do that. It was set up…. I don't think there was anything illegal about it because there was no legislation related to it.

What we wanted to be able to do was to put into operation a pilot project to see how things would go. This section here will tend to legitimize this process.

MR. SCHROEDER: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not talking about the grants. I know that the Minister can, under other legislation and regulation, make grants. That's not the point. The point is the establishing of boards. It seems a little odd to me — in fact it appears as though the Minister may have jumped the gun in the establishing of these boards without the legislation to give him the authority to establish these boards. The money is not what is involved; it is the establishing of the board itself.

HON. MR. LEVI: When you are dealing with social experiments, you can either come in here with an Act that lays everything down and you start from there. Then you've got to learn as you go along. There is nothing wrong with what we have done in order to find out some of the procedures that are going to help us in the election process, in the meeting process, in the kinds of people who are on the boards. We've learned a great deal from that pilot project in the Vancouver-South area. It has added very much to our knowledge about how these operations will go.

It may not be, if you like, orthodox because usually everything starts from the House. But there is nothing illegal about it. I think it is in good keeping with what we are trying to do in the community. That's the important thing. We did have 3,500 people who acceded to this kind of process. That's not an insignificant number of people.

MR. WALLACE: I just feel that the comment from the Member for Chilliwack is very well taken. Again, we are not just talking about a grant of money; we are talking about an election. The whole principle of an election — voting for people to do certain things — is a pretty important pillar of our democratic way of life. Once you elect people to handle taxpayers' money, I think you're into an area where, while I don't for a moment dispute the Minister's good intentions and motivation, I do think this is stretching the credibility of the public a little far.

I don't know what kind of reaction the Minister has been getting, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is one public issue that I have had a great deal of reaction to, based on the question "What on earth is going on?" We've got elections going on: we don't know the boundaries; we don't know who is eligible to vote; we don't really know what the responsibilities are once they are elected.

I agree that we can stumble and get tied up in our own orthodoxy, but on the other hand, as MLAs we have to be sensitive to the spending of taxpayers' money.

This south Vancouver election was a real mess. There were a whole lot of confusing questions — the whole question of even enumeration and who qualified and who didn't, who was eligible and who was not eligible.

I just think that it hasn't done the Minister any good and might even have done him some harm because it has damaged his credibility in bringing in a new approach which might be, and I think in fact is, a well worthwhile endeavour to bring the social services close to the local people who need the service, and involving the local people. But the very patchwork, apparently hasty and ill-organized way in which the Minister has done it, I think, has run the risk of giving the whole system and the whole intent of the system a bad name to start with.

I hope that this debate and probably a press release by the Minister saying just what he said a minute ago…. You might even send the page from Hansard, Mr. Minister. Seriously, I'm being a little facetious, but I think this would serve the public interest.

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate the Member's comments. Just one thing on The Vancouver South thing: first of all, I think you got all of your information from the press. I didn't. I went over there and participated in two public meetings and spoke to a lot of people. The elections were run….

MR. WALLACE: I went to one meeting, remember?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the elections were run. We had the assistance of Mr. Ken Morton's office — the provincial returning officer. There were no problems. Certainly, there has been a lot of discussion about this idea because it is very new. We expected — and got — a lot of flak and some compliments. Since then there have been three other task forces organizing. I might point out that the one in Dunbar–Point Grey is a very interesting way of going about the thing. There are 200 to 300 people attending public meetings. The same in Kitsilano and the same in Hastings-Sunrise.

Unfortunately, the people who wrote about the earlier efforts that were going on in Vancouver South really didn't bother to take an in-depth look at what was going on. I did. I was very concerned about it. That's why I went down and looked at it. There was nothing untoward happening. The thing is that some people in various situations were quite threatened by the fact that we were actually going to do the community involvement in terms of the delivery of

[ Page 4060 ]

service.

Just one other thing in respect to the Vancouver South resource board. They have had no access to public money; they have been there in an advisory capacity. No money has been made available to them other than the grant which set up the board. They have not been administering grants or any kind of programmes whatsoever.

MR. WALLACE: They will be after we've passed this.

HON. MR. LEVI: That process has been taking place directly from Victoria, not by the Vancouver South resource board. They have had an advisory capacity in this. They have been learning things, but they have not been involved in handling any public money whatsoever.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I direct the Minister's attention to part (2) of section 36 and ask him whether or not he or his staff have drawn up a constitution and bylaws for a community board which will become part of the order creating a community board in the local area. I am thinking particularly of model bylaws.

The reason I ask the question, Mr. Minister, is that it pertains to your amendment to section 40, because that will include qualifications of voters and directors.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we do have recommended model bylaws. In fact, two different groups worked on this. We will be making those available — the model bylaws which will spell out the requirements. We do have those and we will be releasing them once we've got the Act through.

In fact, what we intend to do is to make available to the communities that are interested a kit which outlines a number of procedures and the requirements which we have now put together. There is a fair amount of information that is printed, and some of it will be printed. The model bylaws will be included in there, as will the Act, once it has passed. So they will have it right from the beginning. There will certainly be some kind of uniformity in respect to the bill. That's why we have developed the model Act in respect to it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On that point, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister able to tell us this evening — because it will bear upon the consideration of his amendment to section 40 — what the model bylaws will provide in respect to qualifications for membership on the board of directors of the community board, and voting?

HON. MR. LEVI: Could we deal with that under 40?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: All right. Fine.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

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

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, another definition of power which the Minister has which might well conflict with the wishes of the people in the board, but what about the community resource board involvement in this kind of decision? Is the amendment put in to meet the kind of criticism that I am simply making — that it should not be just the Minister's decision to define the boundaries or change of boundaries?

HON. MR. LEVI: It is to bring in the regional board and the community. I think that one of the emphases in relation to the board is that it deals with communities. One can look at a community and see where the people are. I think the Member, because he is from the Capital Regional District, will know that when we integrated the service over here last year we removed the municipal boundaries. We saw where the offices were: in fact, we only had to add one other office in order to have a very equitable distribution of the services. That's what we did.

The other thing is, we do have to be concerned about how people set their boundaries. We don't want people swallowing up other communities without some discussion and agreement on this. That's why we brought in these boards.

Amendment approved.

On section 39 as amended.

MR. SCHROEDER: I had some questions on this when we were speaking of it in second reading. I think that perhaps some of the answers the Minister has given to date have been rather urban concepts. When you get into the provincial concept, I think the ideal is to have these community resource boards blanket the entire province. Once we start thinking of them in terms of a broader scope than just in the City of Vancouver, I think it becomes very important that we assist these community resource boards in determining their boundaries, because if we don't, we will see little islands that are being serviced with these community services, and we will see areas

[ Page 4061 ]

which are perhaps undesirable and perhaps thought not to belong to community resource boards.

For instance, what about Indian reserves? These are areas that perhaps might be left out of the service coverage. I think we need to be very very certain that in the establishing of these boundaries that their boundaries be common, that they be adjacent, so that in the overall plan for the province we don't have areas that are omitted for this service coverage. Can the Minister give us any assurance that this will take place?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, the main thing is that nobody will be omitted from service. Because even if they are not within a community resource board, of course, the province will continue to administer the services, or if it is a municipality, that is also responsible for the area which you feel might have been omitted.

The other thing is, outside of the Vancouver area there are a number of communities, Kamloops, Campbell River, Nelson, that are already into developing community resource boards, where they have defined their boundaries in terms of the city because it is sort of appropriate. But I think this is the kind of thing which, as we get the legislation, we will be discussing very clearly about this with the people.

At the moment we are looking at communities, and where communities are. The communities…. for instance, Campbell River is a defined one. It takes in all of 12,000 people. There are also people in Courtenay-Comox who are looking at the same kind of idea.

The boundary thing has always been a difficulty, not just for community resource boards, but also for the kind of boundaries that we have in respect the sort of service we deliver, Health delivers, Education delivers. All departments are giving quite a bit of attention to this. It would be ideal if we would have contiguous boundaries.

MR. SCHROEDER: Even electoral areas.

HON. MR. LEVI: Even electoral areas, I guess.

Section 39 as amended approved.

On section 40.

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

On the amendment.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides that a person to be elected as a member of the board, and to vote, must be 19 years of age, must be qualified as an elector under the Municipal Act, and must be qualified under the bylaws of the community board. Can the Minister please indicate what those qualifications would be under his standard bylaws?

HON. MR. LEVI: This section really deals with the problem that we were looking at in terms of elections. For instance, in the Vancouver area we would hope that elections could take place at the same time that there would be municipal elections. But I don't think that kind of process would work in the Vancouver area, partly because they may have 12 people running for mayor. I think last time they had 120-odd people running for 27 positions. If we were to add the resource board to that voters' list I think it would lose interest.

What we are looking at in that respect is seeing whether we can have, in the Vancouver area, as we have been discussing with them, off-year elections, so that we don't have those kinds of large lists. I think it will relate, primarily, to what is going on in the Vancouver area, that particular section of that, when we can have the elections.

Does that answer the Member's question?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't believe it does, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. We are talking about qualifications of a person to hold the office of a director. We have got one which is age; we have the second one which is residence. Then there is the third qualifying category — under the bylaws of the community board.

Now, under the previous section, 36, when you, by order, create a local area you will provide the model constitution and bylaws. It is those bylaws which will determine who may be elected as the first directors, and who may vote for the election of the first directors. I want to know whether those bylaws contain any other qualifications besides age and place of residence. Do you have to be…. I don't know what the qualifications might be; that is why I am asking. If we could see these model bylaws it might help to answer that question.

HON. MR. LEVI: Unfortunately, they are still in draft form. The only other requirement, and this is something that we want to discuss with some of the boards, is the length of residence. Six months, I think, we have in most elections, but it varies.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Municipal Act already covers that. And the amendment, subsection (b) provides for residence, subsection (a) provides for age. What other qualifications could there be?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, we are not looking for any

[ Page 4062 ]

other qualifications.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

On section 43.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 43 as amended.

MR. SCHROEDER: Section 43 says: "Every community board shall hold at least once every year a public information meeting…." If you look at section 23 it says: every "regional board shall hold at least once a year a public information meeting…." Is this one and the selfsame meeting? Are these two separate meetings? Is this redundant?

HON. MR. LEVI: They are separate meetings, Mr. Member.

Section 43 as amended approved.

On section 44.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 44 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, section 44 (3) — "The term of office of the directors shall not exceed two years." There is no subsection that I can find regarding eligibility for re-election, or any time factor, or anything to say they can run for re-election a dozen times or two times or any other number of times. I just wondered if that means that each term of office is two years, but beyond the two years the same person can seek re-election.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, the same as MLAs, Mr. Member. They can run as often as they want.

Section 44 as amended approved.

Sections 45 to 54 inclusive approved.

On section 55.

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

On the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to thank the Minister for this amendment which wipes out the words "public education and community recreation." I mentioned this in second reading, and he clearly took my words and presumably those of others to heart. I am glad because I think that the school boards could suffer tremendously had the words been left in, and at least this particular aspect has been made clear. I thank him genuinely for this amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly an area of concern because of the delegation of power in the field of public education. Even so, I am still just a little puzzled as to some of the services left in under the jurisdiction of other Ministers, where this Act will give the Minister power to delegate, such as correctional services, mental health services, mental retardation services. Correctional services are very much the responsibility of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and, of course, these other ones that I have quoted, public health, mental retardation and mental health, are very much the direct responsibility of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). I just wonder why these have still been left in section 55. For example, we have got "respecting social services" — I can understand that, but these other areas are clearly the direct responsibility of two other Ministers. I wonder if this Minister could give some explanation as to why he cut out education and community recreation, but left in these others.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the first reason for cutting it out was that there was some confusion out there. Some groups were feeling quite upset that somehow there were some massive powers in here, which there are not. Now let me be specific about the ones that are left in.

We are cooperating on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, with the correctional service. We are providing facilities, staff, for programmes in the probation area. In respect to mental health we participate with the Minister of Health in providing boarding home situations. The same with the retarded, we are funding the agencies. Really, it is the vehicle for doing much more integrated service work then we've been able to do previously.

If we are dealing, for instance, with children and young people in the rehabilitation area — we're involved very intimately in these programmes — nothing takes place without consultation and agreement. We work very closely with all of the

[ Page 4063 ]

Ministers in respect to programmes.

We have an agreement with the Attorney-General's correctional department. If they are aware of a need for either a child or a group of young people who need service, they get in touch with our people, we meet with them and we make provision for that service. That's the way it has been going on since we've been the government. We are not operating in parallel lines. There's a tremendous amount of co-operation and co-operation in terms of funding.

So there really isn't anything overawesome about this thing. It's not massive powers; it's a vehicle for us to really co-operate.

I think I did point out to the House during second reading that there are certain programmes we can provide for various departments which come within the jurisdiction of the Canada Assistance Plan. We are able to provide such services and, I think, if we can make them legitimately available to other departments, providing they fit the criteria, we have done and we shall continue to do that. That's the only reason.

There was a first reason I did have. The president of the school trustees came along and I listened to her and I listened to the other members. In order for this not to be confusing in the public's mind, we did make the amendments we have made. We don't want people to be confused about what the function is. We want to get on with the job. Rather than have a continuing puzzlement by some people, we're taking it out, the same way we took out section 2.

MR. WALLACE: At this point I would like to record my appreciation of this Minister providing a very clear outline of the amendments which we're now debating. He provided this to the parties this afternoon so I want an appreciation of that recorded.

A last comment on section 55. Am I correct in understanding that it does give the authority to this Minister to delegate authority or responsibility in one area which, strictly speaking, is the responsibility of another Minister? Somewhere along the line, one or other of the Ministers has to make the decision and this section gives this Minister the greater authority over, let us say, the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health — if the good intention of this Minister is that certain areas of correctional services should be used in a certain way as he sees fit — by order to delegate authority or responsibility. Is this interpretation correct?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it isn't, Mr. Member. The section says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on the recommendation of the Member of the executive council charged with the administration of the respective matters referred to in this section…."

Nothing can be done unless there is a recommendation from the Minister of that department.

MR. SCHROEDER: The Minister states that in order to avert public confusion we have eliminated public education and community recreation from this section. Would the Minister not agree that there is also public confusion on the inclusion of, say, public health services?

For instance, if I may refer back just for a few moments to section 54. It talks about the community human resources and health centres, which was a recommendation of the Foulkes report. The Minister of Health had suggested during one of his dissertations that these things were not going to happen under this administration; the health centres were not to be linked with the community resources.

Not only is there confusion on the public level but the confusion seems to be right in the cabinet itself. How were these resolved? Does this amendment — not eliminating public health services — meet with the approval of the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. LEVI: There really isn't any confusion, Mr. Member. We have at the moment an agreement with the Minister of Health — which took place almost a year ago — for the development of four pilot projects for community health and human resources. This was done almost a year ago.

There is a development group that has been into Grand Forks, Queen Charlotte Islands, James Bay, and Houston-Carlisle. That was an agreement we had many, many months before the Foulkes report came down, to see whether we could operate these kinds of models. That's really why that's in there.

Amendment approved.

Section 55 as amended approved.

On section 56.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 57. I think that's a misprint in the bill.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think we should just go back, Mr. Chairman, to 56.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Yes, there is an amendment, I'm sorry.

[ Page 4064 ]

HON. MR. LEVI:…we're amending 56. There's not a problem with the numbering order.

MR. SCHROEDER: Section 58 should be in italics.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, it's unfortunate; it's in 56.

Section 57 approved.

On section 58.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

On section 59.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I see there obviously hasn't been a need for amendments in section 59. There has been anxiety by the professional social workers and other people whom we, according to the section, ensure employment under the Public Service Act.

Could he say something just to make a little clearer for me and to be on the record that this is not threatening to professional people already employed under the Public Service Act, people whom we hope will see the democratizing aspect of this legislation? Maybe just the Minister might add something to that.

HON. MR. LEVI: I thank the Member for raising this. There has been, as I understand it, some anxiety by some staff people in the public service. As we have said, there is no reason for this kind of anxiety.

First of all, we will be consulting with everyone on this as we did in the Vancouver area when we were consulting with all the staff. I have answered some letters now from a number of public service employees. I thank the Member for raising it. Certainly there should be no anxiety in respect to this in terms of the employment or their future in terms of public service, none whatsoever.

Section 59 approved.

On section 60.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't really wish to speak on section 60, Mr. Chairman. On the sheet I have giving the proposed amendments, there are two lines at the very end giving the renumbering of sections. Where does that belong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it was 56. Because one section was struck out some time back, it would require the renumbering.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is this renumbering section moved as a new section? It has to be someplace, Mr. Chairman? It just doesn't hang in the air.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the Hon. Member drawing this to the Chair's attention. I would ask the Hon. Minister to move the final amendment on the order paper.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment to the title, Mr. Chairman. Right at the beginning of the amendment it says "In the title, by asserting after the word 'Resources' the word 'Board.' "

Amendment approved.

Title as amended approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will leave be granted?

Interjections.

HON. MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is that leave be granted that the bill be reported now. Shall leave be granted for that?

Leave not granted.

Bill 84, Community Resources Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the

[ Page 4065 ]

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would use that new device called a microphone.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Moving second reading of Bill 48, intituled the Mineral Amendment Act, 1974, I want to first apologize for being back a little late. I have been working very diligently on some amendments to Bill 31 from the information I got from the other side of the House. I hope to be able to give you more information later on.

The amendments to the Mineral Act are very simple. They change the method of staking claims throughout the province.

At the present time, when claims are staked, they are staked north, south, east, west, southwest, northwest, any way at all. It is just like a jigsaw puzzle. Under the new modified grid system of staking a prospector will only have to locate one post, put all his information on that, and then he goes from there. The staking is directly north, south, east or west. He can stake it in units, which are 1,320 feet square. He can stake one claim of up to 40 units. That would give him 800 acres in one claim. Or he can stake a smaller claim as he likes.

At the present time, the units which we are classing here are a claim. If he stakes more than one unit and he puts his location post as he goes along, they don't necessarily have to be directly north and south and east and west in staking it. But when it goes on the map, the actual staking will be north, south, east and west.

Just to give you an indication of what that means, the previous method had been something like that. When he staked out his claim, he would go a little bit northwest or northeast and would have a crooked line. Then there would be a fraction of a claim in between. From now on, under the modified system, there will be no more fractions between the claims he is setting out.

I think it is going to be a streamlined method. It has been discussed with the industry and with the prospectors. I find that everybody is in agreement with it. They think it is a real progressive step.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, the ones which are out of line now can't be adjusted. You might overlap on the others. Any new claims will be north, south…. Anyone who has claims can restake them in this fashion.

I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): There are a number of sections to this amendment to the Mineral Act. As in a number of other bills we have had before the House, I believe they could better be discussed in committee than in principle because they deal with certain different technicalities which we would like to discuss section by section. We'll debate it in committee.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The bill can be discussed best in committee. I think it is appropriate to say, subject to the amendment the Minister may bring forward, that the bill will really be unnecessary because there won't be any more claims staked in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Unless you are going to correct the old errors, it is really fruitless.

MR. GIBSON: I agree with the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). Certainly committee is the proper stage for most of this bill.

I just want to make a comment at this point. I am concerned somewhat about the reporting requirements as they are set out in this bill: the time of only 90 days after the forfeiture of a claim to submit such reports, and the possible very high cost this could mean to the holder of a free miner's certificate if he had to go through and have a special engineering report done on each lapsed claim. As I say, this is a matter of some concern, but I will bring that up more specifically with the Minister under that section.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Mineral Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 92.

COAL ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is another Act which needed a little streamlining from the time that it had seen any amendments previously.

[ Page 4066 ]

Under the new Coal Act, you will have to have a free miner's certificate in order to locate a coal licence. You will have to have a licence for exploration and development. You will have to have a production lease to go into production.

At the present time, under the old Coal Act, the licence was renewable each year; it was only good for one year at a time. I'm rather surprised at the industry accepting a one-year licence. In the future this will be changed to some extent. If they fulfil the requirements, they will be renewed.

The work requirements will be going up. They will be $3 to $5 per acre or, in lieu of work requirements, it will be cash. Now there is no formal work requirement if they pay 50 cents per acre.

When I took this office there were 1,800 licences out which covered about 1,500 square miles, or a million acres. Since taking office I have not issued any new licences in regard to coal mining. The way they were issued previously was very haphazardly around the province. In many cases there were licences issued where we actually wouldn't want to mine any coal.

In the Peace River there are two companies of 100,000 acres and seven companies of 50,000 acres. In 1972 we collected less than $185,000.

Rentals in the new Act will be $1 per acre for a licence and $2 per acre for a lease.

There will be a minimum royalty of $1 per ton on metallurgical coal.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: Once again, this is a bill which perhaps we can discuss in more relevant terms in committee. There are certain things we certainly do not like in this bill, and certain sections we will oppose.

The bill is really symbolic of the type of legislation we have seen before this House in many other bills. Once again, the matter of royalty and the amount is left to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet. While the Minister has indicated to us tonight what it will be, it certainly doesn't mean that it will remain at that. He will at his discretion and at the sole discretion of the cabinet determine from time to time what will happen.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I feel much more uneasy at the moment than I did before.

It's the type of bill, though, that does illustrate the lack of definitive policy of the NDP. They want to keep everything loose and flexible and up in the air so that industry will never really know until the hammer falls what they are faced with from one day to the next.

All I can do is reiterate the statements I have made before. If it is the intention of the NDP to drive the mineral and the mining industry out of the province, bills like this are the exact way to proceed. Somewhere along the line, as a responsible Minister of the Crown, be it for minerals, coal, petroleum, or whatever, you have a responsibility to spell out in definitive terms the impact that royalties, charges or taxes, or whatever, will have on that industry.

In almost every Act that you've put before this House you leave it to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so that nobody knows what is in store for them six months or a year down the road. It's at the discretion of the Minister. That is not a proper way to progress in this province or move if you expect an increase in the mining industry, in the petroleum industry and in the coal industry in the Province of British Columbia.

These industries are responsible to the money markets for the capital that they need to expand their operations. It's not a matter of requiring small amounts of capital. It's a matter in many instances of requiring many millions of dollars spread over a long period of time for repayment. And they must file with the financial institution a prospectus and an indication of how they expect to be able to make the mine a viable producer and at the same time pay all the expenses involved of operation and the impost by the Crown and still pay off the money that they borrow.

With legislation like this, Mr. Minister, you're making it almost impossible — I would say impossible — for the resource industries in the Province of British Columbia to really indicate accurately what their future is in the province. That is why I say that there are sections of this bill that we will certainly oppose. We will be speaking against them in committee, and at that time I will have more to say about it.

This is the one point that I think that we are miles apart on as opposition and the NDP as government. That is that you deliberately introduce legislation into this House which gives you, you think, a free hand so that if prices fluctuate a little bit you can jump in and grab a quick profit so there will be no "rip-off artists" in the Province of British Columbia.

Really what you are going to do, if you continue along the path you have decided to travel, is wreck the resource industries in this province, including the coal industry.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have to quarrel with the method of presentation of this kind of legislation. And once again it's obviously the kind of a bill that's been presented by this Minister which should have been draped in crepe, because it's another RIP for the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia,

[ Page 4067 ]

and once again with a ghastly potential of cabinet excess.

Mr. Minister, once again you've brought in a bill with the powers and the levies to be determined according to cabinet whim and according to cabinet fancy, all behind the red door of the socialistic cabinet in this province.

I suppose people are going to have to determine in the Province of British Columbia that the levy that you can set under a statute such as this is going to be as long or as short as the Minister's foot. They used to talk about that during the days of the chancellor, going back into the 15th century, Mr. Minister. Equity was at one point determined to be as long as the chancellor's foot. But now we find after 400 or 500 years that we don't test equity that way, we test the taxation process that way. And it's a mighty funny and a mighty unsound way to do it. I would say if we're going to have levies in the Province of British Columbia to be determined as long or as short as the Minister's foot — and I with all respect don't wish to sound like the lady Member for Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — that indeed is a poor yardstick to determine taxation policies in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll just be very brief and say that much of what was said this afternoon about the impact of royalty on mineral exploitation applies as well to this bill and I have no intention of repeating it further than that.

It doesn't apply quite as much to coal because coal is of a more uniform grade and the edges of the deposit are often better demarked. But it still does apply to some extent, and to the extent it applies at all, royalty is the wrong way of levying taxes.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I think that the previous speakers don't know very much about the previous Coal Act, and I don't think they've read the new one and compared the two. Under the previous Coal Act many, many years ago there was a minimum of 25 cents a ton. The cabinet had the right to increase that any time they wanted to. There was a minimum. And that's what they've been paying. Now, if 70 years ago they could have 25 cents a ton, surely $1 a ton minimum at this stage is not out of line.

The power of the Minister was far greater under the previous Act than it is under this one. This shows you how much I agree with you that the Minister shouldn't have too much power, but he should have enough room to maneuver so that the industry doesn't get hemmed in so tightly that you couldn't move off of it. This is what happened in the case of the Coal Act. I think it's a far better Act than it was previously and I'm sure the industry will agree.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has got a hang-up on royalties. We've had royalties on coal for umpteen years on the Crown-owned coals. So this is no change from previously, except that we are trying to bring it in line with present-day thinking.

I move second reading of Bill 92.

Motion approved.

Bill 92, Coal Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 94, Mr. Speaker.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important Act — not a very big one, though. It's the end of the old grubstake Act where we handed out people money to eke out a living while they were out prospecting. Previously they could get a grant of up to $800, but it had to be in the form of a grubstake. Many of the storekeepers and many of the towns had given prospectors grubstakes and received a percentage of anything they found if they gave them a grubstake. This is the way the government carried on for years. They didn't give them any money to develop their claim, or to find out what they had. The prospector, in order to find out whether he had a good deal or not, had to go to the larger companies and they would, after negotiating a deal with the prospector, develop or explore the claim and find out what they really had. And many times the prospector was left on the short end of the stick.

Under this Act the prospector can receive at the behest of the Minister up to $4,000 per year, and a greater amount if he can justify that it is necessary in order to explore and develop his claims.

Under this scheme, of course, the Crown has the right to consider the claim or the mine if he should find one, and either negotiate a deal with the prospector in regard to the claim or help the prospector negotiate with the larger companies and give the prospector expertise and advice in those negotiations. I think this is a big advance for the prospector because since I've been in the department the Yukon-B.C. Chamber of Mines have informed me that the title prospector is the most considered person there is throughout the province, and that it is the little prospector who finds all the mines.

The big mining companies don't find them, but come in at a later date. But you could probably count on the fingers of your two hands how many prospectors have made any great killings from what they have found. In many cases it is the companies that come out on the big end of the stick. I've got one letter here that tells me those very things.

[ Page 4068 ]

I think I've said enough to introduce this bill. I move second reading of Bill 94.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few things on this bill because the riding of Cariboo is historic. I think I said the other day on Bill 31 that most of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for gold found in Barkerville in the 1860s. I have a few comments on this Bill 94.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, it makes it clear to me that the NDP government has in mind the complete domination of the mining industry. I refer just briefly to Bill 31 and now leading into this. They want to dominate this and they give as the ruse for it more revenue for the people's services.

The bill will eliminate the former Prospectors' Grub-Stake Act and replace it with a conditional grubstake Act. In effect, it will make the prospectors civil servants of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You don't really believe that, Alec.

MR. FRASER: I not only believe it, I know it to be a fact. This bill proposes that the prospectors be given $4,000 a year for the purpose of prospecting. What the Minister didn't tell you, Mr. Speaker, and Members, is the fact that if the prospector finds a find the government has first right of refusal on that find.

I would like to ask here: rather than that, why doesn't this bill give the prospector the right to pay back the loan if he has made a find rather than let the government have first right of refusal just because they have got a lien on him through the loan they have made to him in the amount up to $4,000 which this bill says?

I would like to mention another thing, too. This socialist government confuses the facts all the time. The Minister remarked in his remarks here that all the prospectors before never got anything out of it and were not recognized. Well, I happen to have lived in the Cariboo all my life and I would like to refer this House to a well known gentleman who is a prospector by the name of Fred Wells. He founded the Cariboo Gold Quartz Mining Company and created the town of Wells. He was amply paid for his find, Mr. Minister. On top of that he established a mining community of 5,000 people. He retired and when he passed on in this world he was a very wealthy man. So don't misinform this House as you did. Fred Wells prospected for 30 years in the Barkerville country until he made his famous find on Cow Mountain near Barkerville and revived Barkerville from the doldrums of the 1860s.

I would also like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the House about Billy Barker. Don't always say that they didn't get repaid. They certainly did. A lot of the citizens of this country….

MR. LEWIS: How many years ago was that?

MR. FRASER: Fred Wells found the discovery of Cow Mountain in 1933. That's not that long ago. This chicken farmer from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) — where they don't know the difference between gold and silver — I can imagine his remarks. I would like to fill him in a little about the history of mining in this province which originated in the Cariboo. I don't for one minute want to sit back and hear the guff. As I understand this bill, Mr. Speaker, the prospector, if he has a find, has no option at all open to him but to give the first right of refusal to the Crown. I say that the prospector should have the right, if he has made a find, to pay back the loan and then go and make his deal — the best deal he can make. But I can read through this that through the NDP the complete takeover of the mining industry in the province started with Bill 31. It's in here in this small Bill 94. It goes on to another bill that I will have something to say about in a little while. It really is, in effect, a complete takeover of the mineral and the mining industry. For that reason I certainly oppose Bill 94.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it is nice that the Minister wants to do something for the prospectors.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: He didn't do it the right way in this bill. The great problem is with section 6, which establishes the principle that the prospector is basically a servant of the state and that he must give the first right to negotiate on whatever he may find to the government.

This to me is another indication, no matter what the Minister or the government might say, that they are interested in getting into the mining business. They don't just want these claims to deal with them. They want them for the people's property, as the Attorney-General said earlier in an aside in this debate. Then they want to work them and do something with them, or they want to be partners in them. They want to be in a position basically for the state to be involved in the mining business in an equity way. If that is the intent, why don't you just come right out and say it? Then it is a lot easier to deal with.

I do not believe this provision right here has been very well received by prospectors. We will have the proof of the pudding a year from now when the Minister's estimates come up and when we look at how much of the money which was appropriated is appropriated by this Act, formerly for the Prospectors' Grub-Stake Act, when we see how much

[ Page 4069 ]

of that has actually been used — how many free prospectors were actually willing to submit themselves to this kind of a condition. I don't think the Minister should have asked them to submit to that kind of a condition. He knows that pickings are going to be kind of slim around this province for the next year for people engaged in the exploration business because of some of his other legislation like Bill 31. Maybe some of them are going to be forced into this because they've got nowhere else to go but it is not fair, Mr. Minister, to put them in that position. You should make the provision, as the Hon. Member for Cariboo said, for a prospector to pay back that loan and then have the free right to deal with what he finds.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Private companies don't do that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Ministers on that side keep comparing themselves to companies. You're not a company, you're a government — will you get that through your head? You've got certain responsibilities to the public that companies don't have. I wish you would understand and live up to that. It's just ridiculous.

The Minister spoke about the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines as being the spokesman for the prospector. Indeed they are. What did the manager of that chamber say? He said the value of the Prospectors' Grub-Stake Act, or what is now the Prospectors Assistance Act, is destroyed by the clause that demands first refusal by the government of any find made by a prospector. This is strong language, but once again don't question his sincerity as you did yesterday, Mr. Minister, because Mr. Elliot means what he says. He said:

"This is slave-state legislation. It is designed to employ prospectors for a minimum reward. It is a step toward employing prospectors. That's what they do in Russia. If a prospector finds something good they pin a medal on him and give him a vacation by the Black Sea."

You talk about prospectors being able to make a good deal. Mr. Elliot says:

"In the past a prospector could negotiate any deal. He had 90 major companies and 300 smaller stock companies to choose from. Any prospector accepting this new grubstake would be trapped in the bureaucracy and domination of the government. It is fundamentally wrong."

And it is, Mr. Minister. You're not saying that the government would be more onerous in its deals with the prospectors than all of those companies bidding for the prospectors finding wood. You can't really say that. What you want to do through this Act is to get a hold on a lot of the claims being staked around this province. Again, I'll have more to say on this in committee.

I'm sure the good wishes of the Minister in drafting this Act are completely subverted and ruined by that section 6 and that first refusal clause. It is very, very wrong.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I don't really mean to get up and give a lengthy speech because I don't really think we have to on this particular Act.

This is going to be a boon to the prospector in British Columbia. You see, Mr. Speaker, I have been associated with many prospectors and I know of many who were shafted by the mining companies.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: I wonder if anybody here knew the man who discovered the Endako Mine.

MR. LEWIS: Was that Billy Barker?

MR. KELLY: No, it wasn't Billy Barker. His name was Foote. Today there is a memorial hall there in his name, but that's all he ever received for the reward of discovering the Endako Mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. KELLY: I happen to know about this. That man discovered Endako Mine and held it for 30 years. Nobody but nobody would give him one cent or contribute one cent towards that prospect. So when it dropped into the family — finally one of the family got it — even then there was no value in that mine. Let's not say that all these prospectors did gain a lot when they found a rich discovery because, in this particular instance, the son even dropped the holdings.

Eventually, along came the Endako group and they took up the option on the holding and got the property. In sheer embarrassment they finally gave Mr. Foote's son 10,000 shares of Endako stock, which of course at that time was around $3 or $4 a share. It could have been $5. So not all prospectors benefited from discovering rich properties.

In fact, there is another small mine in the area near Fraser Lake. These small prospector-type miners are attempting to build this mine up. But when they go to the stock market, guess what happens? Legally, the stock market is entitled to 140,000 shares of their stock. But you know what? The stock company wants another 100,000 shares under the table before they will promote that mine. That's a fact.

Interjection.

[ Page 4070 ]

MR. KELLY: I would say that these particular prospectors are honest people because they won't allow that to happen. And you know what? They've held back the production of their mine or to do further work on their mine just because a stockbroker would attempt to extort them for another 100,000 shares.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: But it has something to do with what this bill is trying to do. It is to support these prospectors into doing work on their claims.

MR. FRASER: We had a good bill.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: In 1957, a very good friend of mine made the largest discovery in the Yukon. He was working for Canex. When he went to work for them, he would receive 5 per cent of the discovery, whatever discovery he made. If he made a discovery, that's what he would receive.

He made the largest discovery that year. At least it was the richest discovery. But when it was proven out, there were only 12 million tons of ore. In this particular case it was too far from communications or from the local centres for that ore to be mined profitably at that time.

So my friend, of course, worked all summer for wages. To this day he has received nothing. That's about 16 years ago. He has received nothing from Canex for that particular discovery, other than his wages.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I see what this Minister is doing for the prospectors in British Columbia today, I certainly endorse this kind of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm rather amazed at the opposition in dealing with this bill when they talk about the bill making the prospector a servant to the state or a servant to the people. Well, I'm sure any prospector would sooner deal with a friendly government than deal with private enterprise.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to ask anyone to show me one person, or one company which will put up money to a prospector without his pound of flesh.

MR. FRASER: That's what you're asking here: a pound of flesh.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, but I'm asking you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, they want their pound of flesh if they put up any grub-staking for a prospector. That's on the private sector. In all cases.

I've said before that you could count on the fingers of your two hands the number of prospectors who have done well in the Province of British Columbia. You managed to get one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That was Mr. Wells. I could give you one. Spud Eustus didn't do too bad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, Pat Reynolds is not a prospector. And then you go back….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You go back to the priest who discovered the Moyie Mine, and the Indians. They got practically nothing out of the Moyie Mine when they turned it over to the company.

The men who discovered the Sullivan Mine. I remember the last living member of that group who discovered the Sullivan Mine. He was put on a pension by the company that took over the mine.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This morality you are talking about is only moral for the private sector to deal with the prospectors but it isn't moral for the government, on behalf of the people, to deal with the prospector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I would like to read you a paragraph here from a letter I got from a prospector:

"Dear Sir:

"I would like to apologize for the prospectors of B.C. who have been duped by the big companies and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines to attend these meetings called by them to attack the New Democratic Party policies.

"As a professional prospector I have seen more prospectors wheedled, cheated and chiselled out of more properties than the public could ever dream."

Interjections.

[ Page 4071 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When a prospector tries to go to the stock market and he's going to put a prospect on the market, the underwriters get their big share. Up until this bill, prospectors had been at the mercy of big companies.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is what is worrying the big companies and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. They're a little worried that the prospector is going to be a little more independent from now on than he was previously.

I move second reading of Bill 94.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

AN HON. MEMBER: Record it.

Bill 94, Prospectors Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 132, a minor housekeeping bill.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Premier says, this is a housekeeping bill. It's going to give a faster turnover in landholdings, increase fees, rentals and work requirements pertaining to land tenure. At present you've got huge acreages being held by major operators, and these operators are farming out parts of these areas to the small, independent operators. These tenures last up to a total of 22 years. We feel that this major operator should be required to carry out development drilling.

The ceiling is taken off the royalties, and will be set by order-in-council, the same as in Alberta. There will be no royalty charged to those companies dealing in natural gas with the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia. New crude oil royalties will be set up to capture the major portion of the $2.70 increase in the field price of the crude oil that took place last month.

One very important amendment, and one I'm sure the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) and the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) will give complete support to, is the amendment dealing with mediation and arbitration boards and the right of entry.

In future, when somebody wants to enter their farm, they can take it first before we settle it. If they're having any argument, we go to mediation and then to arbitration. This has been well received, from what I can understand, by the farmers in the Peace River area.

Many of those agreements made years ago for right of entry have never been changed. Regardless of how the dollar has changed, they have not been changed. Now they can be reopened. It will make it possible to renegotiate agreements made many years ago with the farmers.

I think that is one point that will override all other points in the bill and make at least the Members for the Peace River area vote with this bill. I move second reading of Bill 132.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to him, Ed. Sock it to him.

MR. SMITH: Okay, if you insist. Mr. Speaker, it's been a night for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. We've discussed a number of his bills, and like most of the bills, this has some good points, I agree, and it has a few that are pretty lousy, Mr. Minister, as far as the industry and everybody associated with it are concerned.

But maybe that's to be expected when we deal with a bill which the Minister himself, in opening second reading, obviously is not really that much in tune with. I think perhaps he listened to a few of the new-found experts in the department instead of those people who really know what's going on in the petroleum industry, and came up with these amendments.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) not like myself, but I know something about the petroleum industry, yes. I also know that the

[ Page 4072 ]

department has a lot of professional people in it who know a tremendous amount about the petroleum industry. They're good people; they're professional people. They've been there for a long enough period of time that they know what the industry is all about.

That's why I think the Minister should listen perhaps a little closer to these people than he does on the odd occasion. As I say, there are good points in this bill, I agree, but there are certain things that I think will reflect badly on the industry in the Province of British Columbia and be a detriment.

The Minister has suggested that in this bill and in these amendments he has come up with a scheme which would increase the exploration activity in the Province of British Columbia. Now I suppose that he bases that assumption on the fact that he may now, under the provisions of this Act, require anyone who has leasehold property in the Province of British Columbia, or petroleum leases, to explore the area by a certain date or forfeit those leases.

He seems to think that that is going to increase the exploration activity in the Province of British Columbia. I suggest to the Minister that that is not the case. It won't increase the exploration activity in the Province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, it may work; and I think it will work in reverse.

It is true that a number of the major companies in the Province of British Columbia hold leases and the right to explore for petroleum products in substantially large areas of this province. How did they get those leases, Mr. Minister? You know how they acquired those leases. They bid for them on a competitive basis, and the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources issued the lease to the company with the highest bid.

It is no secret that the coffers of the Province of British Columbia have been enriched to the tune of between $30 million and $40 million a year for just that one privilege; the right to go out and explore for petroleum resources.

You didn't lift your little finger. You didn't spend a five-cent piece as government. All you did was advertise that a certain area would be open for bids for the right to explore for petroleum products.

As a result of those competitive bids the government has been very successful. Now you didn't invent that scheme. It was certainly in force long before you became Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. But it has enhanced the coffers of this province by a substantial amount.

It is found money, Mr. Minister. It is found money because of the fact that you didn't have to invest anything to get it. Now if you compare that to the logging industry, for instance, in the Province of British Columbia, the forest industry, there is a tremendous investment by the department in many areas in order to receive what they do in revenue to the Crown.

But in this particular situation you invested nothing, and you have been the recipient of a substantial amount of revenue. Now the fact that those companies bid competitively for the right to explore probably means that they were large enough to attract a substantial amount of investment capital.

The part of it that the Minister does not seem to understand is the fact that they job out most of the work that is done in the exploration field. They don't do it themselves. You can take a big company like Texaco, Ameco Petroleum, Imperial Oil, all of these people who have paid substantial money to the government for the right to explore in the Province of British Columbia. And in most cases their work on their leases is done by those small corporations, those small petroleum companies that are mainly financed with British Columbia finance and capital raised in the Province of British Columbia or Alberta — because we are very close to the Province of Alberta in terms of oil exploration and discovery.

But it is Canadian capital, Mr. Minister, by small companies, who employ a tremendous number of individuals in the field of exploration in the Province of British Columbia. They do it on the basis of a contract between themselves and the company who owns the lease or who has the lease. This is how they survive and provide employment for a tremendous number of people in the Province of British Columbia.

Now it is a good system, and I am the first one to say that the increase in the rental, if you like to call it that, per acre is not significant. It is not going to detract from exploration in the Province of British Columbia. But what will be a detriment will be the provision that the Minister at his discretion can go to any company that has a lease or a permit in this province and say that because of the shortage of petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia we deem that you must drill next year or your lease will be cancelled.

This is the power that you are granting yourself under this Act. I don't really think you know what you are doing. I would like to tell you why. Many of the comparatively lucrative areas for potential oil and natural gas production have already been discovered and drilled out, almost to a maximum. So now we are in the position, so far as exploration is concerned, of step-outs into country where it costs anywhere from $5 million to $10 million, Mr. Minister, to drill one exploratory well.

The Pointed Mountain area is a very good example of an area which is inaccessible almost, where the strata and the formation are tremendously difficult to cope with and where they have to spud in a drilling rig on top of a mountain and drill down 10,000 to 15,000 feet in the hope of finding some natural gas.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Why don't you just get lost, Mr. Minister. You don't have a clue as to what is going on in this House. You might as well be out in the boondocks as here.

You know, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has no conception of what goes on in the petroleum industry in this province. To him it seems to be a laughing matter that the people who have worked hard to develop an industry and have spent over $1 billion in the Province of British Columbia — not out of the taxpayers' pockets, my friend; they raised that capital outside of the taxpayers and reinvested it in this province — should be faced with an attitude like that.

It is not much wonder that the people who are in the industry shake their heads and wonder if they have any future at all in the Province of British Columbia. They are convinced that neither the Minister nor the Members of his cabinet know anything about the industry. What is more, they are convinced that you care less, and that the whole attitude of the NDP is to force the industry into a position where you can take them over.

That is unfortunate because, I tell you, if we go by the record of the government, and the lack of knowledge that they exhibit in this particular field, the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and there will be no return on it; because it is a very risky business.

I would like to get back to what I was saying before about drilling and drilling permits. Much of the area now under permit, Mr. Minister, is marginal in terms of the potential discovery in those areas.

It's not only marginal, but the costs of drilling are excessive when you compare ourselves to the Province of Alberta or other areas in western Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: The royalties are just about the same.

MR. SMITH: Yes, but what I've suggested, Mr. Minister, if you were listening, is the fact that the industry does not object to the schedule of fees or the rental that they have to pay to the Crown. They do not object to the system where they go out and competitively bid against other companies for the right to drill. What they are very apprehensive about is the fact that now the Minister can step in and suggest to them that they must drill today, tomorrow or three months from now or lose the rights to that particular area.

The Minister, if he wishes to put them in a position of great expenditure with the possibility of very small return, will make sure they have to step out and drill into some of the areas where the likelihood of petroleum recovery or gas recovery is very, very minimal.

So we do have a problem in the industry today, Mr. Minister, and I hope you realize it. The problem is that the discovery rate has been high in relation to many areas up until the present time; but we cannot expect that particular picture to project into the future. The well-known geological formations have been explored and they are now producing gas or oil as the case may be. The step-outs that the companies are taking today go into areas….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: What's the matter with you?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Why don't you go take your own seat?

The step-outs that they are involved in today go into areas where the cost of exploration and drilling is very, very costly. So all that the companies really would ask of the Minister is that they be given a fair amount of time — when they have invested money, substantial money — on a competitive basis to get the right to drill in the Province of British Columbia, to coordinate a programme and lay it on in the areas where they have at least some hope of return to themselves and to the Crown. The Minister well knows that the rental he charges to hold the permit is insignificant in relation to the amount of revenue the Crown receives from the competitive-bid process which allows them the right to go into those areas.

If there is in the minds of the exploration companies a feeling that they have spent many millions of dollars for the right to explore and that then they may have that right cancelled by the Minister at his whim and at his discretion, I guarantee you one thing, Mr. Minister: the revenue from the sale of the right to explore for petroleum in the Province of British Columbia will go down, not up. It is unfortunate, because it's going to happen at a time when every company should be drilling and going ahead full blast in this province to find hydrocarbon energy.

After all, the potential for the sale of natural gas is great; the price is escalating. Even with the amount of revenue that the Crown takes off the top there is still an increase to those people who go in and drill and discover new hydrocarbon deposits. So it should be escalating very rapidly in the Province of British Columbia.

I would like to say one other thing to the Minister while I'm talking about exploration. That is that the large companies who hold the permits in most cases enter into an agreement with the company who will actually do the drilling — many of these companies who do the drilling are small companies — and that that company will share in the benefit of any

[ Page 4074 ]

discovery. So it is a cooperative effort on the part of the industry.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It's a programme that has worked very successfully. Did you want to talk to me? No?

It's a programme that has worked very successfully in this province.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I didn't say they had cut it off altogether. I say that it should be expanding.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Well, who said that?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: I know what's going on up there. And I know that the rate of exploration should be greatly enhanced and increased at the present time. Probably it should be double what it was two years ago, but it's not. It should be double whatever rate of discovery and exploration was going on two years ago because of the shortage of hydrocarbon energy, and it's not. It's not anything close to that.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: How many new wells drilled a year?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: It was going at a very steady pace two years ago, and it should be double that if we are to keep up to the demands for the energy. But we're not going to do it the way you are progressing.

As I say, the industry is not concerned about…. You know, people who obviously don't know anything about this particular subject…. Why don't you just get up and leave? Why don't you go take a powder? That's about all you're good for in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair? Could we have some order, please?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But when I get heckled from the other side of the House by people who obviously have no knowledge about the petroleum industry, it does get me a bit uptight. I happen to live in the part of a country where it's a very important part of the economy of that region. It's been very beneficial to the Province of British Columbia in terms of revenue, and it's been very beneficial to the people who live in the Peace River country and the Fort Nelson area for a long period of time — over a period now of 20 years on an increasing basis.

As I was saying, the industry is not really that concerned about the increase in rental rates. But they are very much concerned, Mr. Minister, that when they enter into a contract with the government in good faith for the right to explore, they be given the benefit of the full term of that contract, and not have the Minister step in at his discretion and suggest to the company that they must go in and drill in a certain area now or forfeit the rights.

They paid very good money and extremely handsome money to the Province of British Columbia for that right and they want to maintain it. I think it's a position that we should maintain in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: amendments to Bill 31, intituled Mineral Royalties Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 31.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.

[ Page 4075 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 4051 et seq.:

84 The Hon. Norman Levi to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 84) intituled Community Resources Act, to amend as follows:

In the title, by inserting, after the word "Resources", the word "Boards".

Section 1, line 2, in the definition of "public agency": By deleting the word "department" and substituting the words "Department of Human Resources".

Section 1, line 1, in paragraph (iv) of the definition of "social services": By inserting, after the word "health", the word "care".

Section 2: By deleting section 2.

Section 9 (1), line 1: By deleting the words "On the recommendation of the director" and substituting the words "On the joint recommendation of the director and the appropriate regional board or community board".

Section 13, lines 1 and 4:

(a) By deleting the word "may" and substituting the word "shall"; and

(b) By adding at the end the words ", and the election shall be held not later than sixty days after the election has been set aside under section 12."

Section 25 (2) (b), line 1: By deleting the word "One" and substituting the word "Two".

Section 25 (2): By deleting clauses (e) and (f) and relettering clause (g) as clause (e).

Section 39, line 2: By inserting, after the word "minister", the words "and the regional board".

Section 40: By deleting section 40 and substituting the following:

"Eligibility for voting and election.

    "40. (1) Every person who is a resident of the local area in which the community board carries on social services and who

    (a) is of the age of majority;  

    (b) is qualified as an elector under the Municipal Act; and

    (c) is qualified under the by-laws of the community board

is eligible to be elected a member of the board of directors of that community board and entitled to vote at any election held in respect of that community board.

"(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a community board is established within the region for which the Vancouver Resources Board is established, every person who is a resident of the local area in which the community board carries on social services, and who

(a) is of the age of majority;

(b) is qualified as an elector under the Vancouver Charter; and

(c) is qualified under the by-laws of the community board

is eligible to be elected a member of the board of directors of the community board and entitled to vote at any election held in respect of the community board."

Section 43, line 3: By deleting the word "society" and substituting the words "community board".

Section 44 (2), lines 1 and 2: By deleting the words "members within" and substituting the words "residents of".

Section 55 (1), lines 6 and 7: By deleting the words "manpower. and employment services, public education, and community recreation" and substituting the words "and manpower and employment services".

Section 56, line 8: By inserting, after the word "Resources", the word "Boards".

By inserting, after section 56, the following as section 56A:

[ Page 4076 ]

APPENDIX

"Amends Social Assistance Act.

    "56A. Section 13 (b) of the Social Assistance Act, being chapter 360 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is repealed and the following is substituted:

    '(b) may delegate under his supervision any duty or responsibility under this Act or the regulations to an administering authority as defined in the regulations;'."

Section 58, line 8: By striking out the number "1974," and substituting the number "1975,".

By renumbering sections 3 to 56A as sections 2 to 56, and renumbering all internal references in the Act accordingly.