[ Page 4077 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Petroleum and Natural Gag Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13 2). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 4077

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4078

Placer Mining Act (Bill 144). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4078

Mr. Fraser — 4079

Mr. Gibson — 4081

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4081

Division on second reading — 4082

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

Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 4082

Coal Act (Bill 92) amendments. Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction — 4082

Division on introduction — 4082

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 4083

Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4083

Mrs. Jordan — 4083

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4085

Mr. Wallace — 4086

Mr. Curtis — 4087

Mr. Rolston — 4088

Mr. McClelland — 4089

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4090

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4091

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 119). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 4093

Mr. Fraser — 4094

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4094

Mr. Wallace — 4096

Hon. Mr. King — 4098

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, today I've asked the Members to proceed to public bills and orders in the following order: I would like to complete adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 132; after that, complete second reading of Bill 144; then go to second reading of Bill 15, then Bill 159. If time permits, we could do some routine committee work, non-controversial committee work on legislation. If all goes well, we could have His Honour here at about…. (Laughter.)

I now call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 132, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the comments that I had to make on this bill I think I had almost concluded last night before the House rose at 11 o'clock. So, really I have very little more to say about the amendments to the petroleum and natural gas Act.

I'd just like to recap, though, what I did say last night, that I feel that the Minister has provided some worthwhile sections in this bill. One of the things that he said…at least it was quoted in the press that one of the reasons for introducing these amendments was to accelerate exploration in British Columbia. And he felt that by increasing the rental fees for the right to drill, and that by having a discretionary power in his hands with respect to the cancellation of leases if the people did not perform, that he would get increased exploration in the province. At least I'm paraphrasing what I've read from the newspapers.

The point that I made last night, and the point I just want to reiterate briefly this morning is the fact that it's the wrong way to approach it, Mr. Minister, because that is not going to increase exploration in the Province of British Columbia.

While the increase goes from five and ten cents an acre to 10 and 20 cents an acre, which is double, it is not really going to produce any great amount of additional revenue. And the revenue that is produced, really, is just going to detract, or subtract, from the amount of money the companies will have available for exploration work in the province. This will really not produce any more exploration. It will produce very little more revenue to the Crown in terms of net dollars.

The place where you do realize the most net revenue to the Crown is in the sale by public tender, or the bidding for the right to explore for petroleum products. As long as a fair political climate exists in the Province of British Columbia, you can probably expect to receive bids of substantial nature, even though the discovery rate has gone down considerably from what it was.

But the one point that the companies today fear most is that in legislation that has already been passed, in the amendments proposed and in the discretionary powers left in the hands of the Minister, they really do not have firm or fixed guidelines to go by.

Most of the big multi-national corporations, who initially bid competitively in British Columbia for petroleum and natural gas leases, bid in the Province of Alberta, in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon for the same rights. And exploration money, the pool of money that's available to any company, will be diverted to the areas where the best political climate is at the present time, in terms of stability and the greatest degree of expectation of some sort of discovery.

So, I believe that while the increase in fees is not substantial, and is not going to affect, in my opinion, exploration one way or another, that the attitude and the type of legislation and the discretionary power that's in your hands will detrimentally effect exploration in the Province of British Columbia. It may not do it immediately, but in the long term it certainly will because the dollars that are available will flow to other areas.

This is something we don't want to lose because the petroleum industry has returned to the province substantial net revenues every year for at least the last 10 years in just acquiring the right to explore in given areas of the province. Net dollars to the government for which you didn't really have to put up anything.

The companies are also concerned where the Province of British Columbia is going with respect to becoming involved in exploration and refining themselves. Are you in the process of setting up a refinery in the Province of British Columbia through a Crown corporation? Are you in the process of setting up your own exploration companies? If you are not in the process of setting up a refinery in the Province of British Columbia, then why, when the Mohawk Petroleum Company, which is a Canadian corporation, applied for the right to build a refinery in the Province of British Columbia, did the government not only not refuse them the right but to date has not acted on their request at all?

There has been a wall of secrecy there for some reason. They have repeatedly asked the government to allow them to develop their plans or tell them

[ Page 4078 ]

what they would like to do. They want to get into the refining business in the Province of British Columbia but they are frustrated by your government which refuses to give them any type of an answer at all. That suggests to me that you are waffling on the matter because of the fact that you are investigating the possibility of setting up your own refinery in the Province of British Columbia.

Mohawk is a Canadian company, controlled by Canadian shareholders. Why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to go ahead and develop if they have a legitimate scheme? I presume it is legitimate, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money that they have spent in trying to investigate the whole problem of refining in the Province of British Columbia.

The provisions in the amendments to this Act that deal with the manner in which a company gets the right to go in and explore on farmland or private land I think are acceptable to the farming community. The fact that you are now setting up a committee in a little different manner than we had before under the old arbitration board is acceptable to most people, including the petroleum industry.

But I would hope the Minister, in closing debate on second reading of this bill, will say in definitive terms what the government policy is with respect to the private petroleum companies presently operating in the Province of British Columbia. How do they fit into the future plans in this province? That is the fundamental question if we expect to continue exploration and discovery of hydrocarbon energy in British Columbia.

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

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). There will be some amendments that will answer some of your questions. We had a meeting with the people concerned; we took into consideration what they thought should be changed. We've made some changes that I am sure will be acceptable to them.

In regard to the holding of huge areas of land by the larger companies, I realize how they get it. They bid on it; they pay so much money. But we feel this shouldn't give them a right to keep that frozen for many years. They wait until some smaller outfit which hasn't got too much money but has a lot of expertise to drill comes in. They farm it to this smaller company which drills it. If they strike anything, they immediately get a 50 per cent interest in it. They job out the building, but on a 50 per cent basis.

You were asking if the government has intentions to go into this business. At the present time we have no intentions, but if it became necessary I would say that we have a lot of Crown land. There are those people who are willing to drill and take a chance on striking it and become partners of the Crown. I don't see anything different with that than these huge companies farming out to these smaller operators. Maybe then we would be in a better position.

This act was intentionally made to prevent huge areas from being kept out of development or exploration purposes, just waiting for somebody to come along and do the drilling. We say that if these large companies can't get the small outfits to come and drill, they should be drilling themselves. If they don't do that then they aren't fulfilling the object of the Act.

I'm sure that when you see the amendments, everything will be fine. I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 132, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 144.

PLACER MINING ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the Placer Mining Act we have had on the books for many years is quite outdated for the considerations that go on at the present time. Under the Placer Mining Act they even had staking of claims and leases. Several years ago, prior to my taking office, they stopped the staking of claims on placer mining and went all to leases. We continue the leases.

Originally, as you well know, placer mining was a very important feature and industry of our province. The high points of placer mining in British Columbia were Yale in 1858; Cariboo in 1863; Cassiar in 1875; Tulameen in 1886; Atlin in 1899; Fort Steel, Rock Creek, Omineca and Quesnel River; in 1921 we had Cedar Creek — that was a fairly high point; in 1972, Squaw Creek; in 1932, Wheaton Creek. That was about the last high point we have had in placer mining in the Province of British Columbia.

From 1858 to 1971 we produced 5.2 million ounces, or $97 million. In 1971, to show you the insignificance of placer mining in the province today, we produced 177 ounces, or $4,647. In 1972 we produced 691 ounces, which is $26,905. That is not fully one gold brick. That is in placer mining. That is why I say the value of production of placer mining is very insignificant to the province.

I think the more important part of placer mining is

[ Page 4079 ]

what it does to the environment. When you go back over the old workings that happened many years ago you see what damage can be done to the environment. We realize that the environment can be damaged and that is the reason we have in this Act power to designate areas where you can placer mine as having leases.

We have left hand panning out of the requirements of having a free miner's certificate. We realize people on holidays and recreation sometimes stop by a creek and take their child down to the creek and show him how to take a pan out and pan the sand. We don't feel people should be harassed in this way by somebody coming along and asking if they have a free miner's certificate. They wouldn't know what a free miner's certificate was even, let alone whether they needed one or not.

You do need a free miner's certificate if you are going into the location and asking for a lease. At the present time, when you want a lease on placer mining, you have to go through about four or five different departments, including the federal fisheries department. It has frustrated many small prospectors by having to go to one and then they get shunted off to another. By the time they get through they give up going placer mining altogether.

In the future we hope this can be channeled through the Department of Mines. The application can come in to us and then we can channel it to the other departments. If they pass on it and everything is completed, then the lease can be allowed. All the departments would have to pass on whether the lease was allowed or not.

I'm sure this Placer Mining Act will not only be further protection for the environment but will give people a lot more assurance as to what they can do and will facilitate the applications that are made for leases.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'd like to say a few words about this. I don't particularly like this bill at all. As the Minister said earlier, he is correct that last year and over the years I don't imagine there was too much from placer mining in the way of wealth. But at certain times placer mining has saved the economy of the province. It appears to me in this Act here they are only going to make it more difficult. For that reason I oppose this bill.

I might say that economics plays a big part in placer mining. It hasn't been economic until the last year or so to mine gold because of the price of gold on the world market. Now gold has advanced to a substantial price. I think if the climate was right, we would see a lot more placer mining going on.

This bill to me seems to be the same as Bill 31 as it applies to copper. This one applies to gold. It does give the Minister the discretionary powers here to assess a royalty on gold. I would like to know from him if he is going to assess this on the prospector, the fellow who goes out and gets $2,000 or $3,000 worth of gold. Is the Minister of Mines going to say, "Well, you have to give me S I 800 or $2,800 or 60 per cent or 70 per cent of what you take.

That's one thing I don't like about this; it's discretionary. It doesn't spell out just what he is going to do. I believe the government has made a statement they have no intention of doing this. But when this bill becomes law they have all the right in the world to assess a royalty on gold.

As far as the environment is concerned, there have been regulations on this for some time. It is my opinion that placer mining doesn't affect the environment anymore than a big flood of water. I particularly refer to the water they use for washing gold that trickles finally down into a lake or stream.

It doesn't do as much damage as a spring freshet does.

I think it's a bunch of nonsense to play up the to PT environment as related lacer mining. There's a lot more damage done by spring runoffs in the Interior of the province than there ever was in prospecting.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to say here a few things the industry has said about this.

Mr. Elliott of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines is a well-known spokesman for the mining people. I think he is a respected spokesman of the industry. He says:

"(They) are not opposed to regional control, but the bill is unrealistic and unfair. In the last few years miners have been harassed by environment people. They've gone to extremes to protect a little mud in the river. With proper care and using mechanical equipment, miners can recover gold from gravel without doing any serious damage to the rivers. In placer mining, ore body and gravel is washed through water, leaving the mineral at the bottom of a sluice box or pan. The Minister of Mines has said the government is concerned that placer operations can be harmful to streams, especially when hydraulic pressure is used. The cost of government land surveying would be several thousands of dollars."

That's provided for in here; it makes it mandatory for surveying. Anybody knows what the cost is of getting anything surveyed these days. How is the little prospector going to be able to afford the cost that this bill provides? These are all the things the little fellows are worrying about in this bill. I would like to hear the Minister's remarks in response to the surveying costs.

I still think the worst part of it is the discretionary powers for the Minister to assess on gold. If gold is at

[ Page 4080 ]

$100 an ounce, is the Minister going to take $90 of that after they have recovered it? There is still a lot of gold in British Columbia but I can't see any activity coming now because of this. They'll just stand still.

As an example, in the famous Wells-Barkerville area, in the 1860s and also in the I 930s there was a gold rush and it saved the economy of the central Interior. I am very well aware of that, but that was missed by the Hon. Minister. What I'm trying to say is that there's still gold "in them thar hills" and I can't see that this bill will encourage anyone in any way to go out and find this gold.

I understand that at the present time there is a big rush on by the young people to go out placer mining. This year, apparently in the Interior, there have been all kinds of miners' certificates issued to the young people.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, I don't think it is at all. It's how they're trying to garner a living. That's the information I have. Is this going to run them all out of there? There's lots of gold there if they keep at it, I can assure you of that. They found it before and they certainly haven't got it all by a long shot.

There's one good thing here that the Minister has put in this bill. You get all your permits from the Department of Mines. But I don't think it's going to speed anything up, Mr. Speaker, because the Department of Mines is going to ask every other department to report to them. What it does cut down is the individual applicant having to go to seven or eight government departments. But it could well slow it down a lot in view of the fact that this will be interdepartmental. You know what happens when you get between government departments: the administrative red tape really gets involved. I think it will slow it down to the point where the person will probably give up.

I would like to hear from the Minister, when he's closing the debate, on how he intends to apply the royalties on gold that this bill provides for. It certainly has the small prospector upset. This Bill 144 is of more concern in the Interior of British Columbia than Bill 31, as a matter of fact, because it affects more little people by a long shot than Bill 31 does.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I support the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Cariboo that this bill does affect a lot of people. The placer industry may not have been very large in dollar volume in previous years. In the Minister's report for 1972, the reported value seems to have been only in the nature of $27,000. It was undoubtedly several times that, but it was still not large in 1972.

In 1974, with gold prices having quadrupled or gone up five or six times higher than that, it's possible that this will become much more important in the future.

It does affect a lot of people. I have heard estimates of between 2,500 and 5,000 people at some time during the year spending some time working placer leases. So that's a fair number of people and it's reason to give careful attention to this legislation.

I recognize the environmental thrust that the Minister has in mind. I noted in the press release accompanying the bill that placer mining has been completely banned in California and that the Minister found it possible to continue it in British Columbia. I hope he will find that possible in the future. The environmental damage that has to be done by placer mining is very possibly overrated. There are ways of combining the placer mining with good practices and not doing great damage to stream beds.

I support, as well, the one-stop shopping idea in this bill. I hope, however, that it might lead to leases being granted more promptly. I understand that now there is often a waiting period of up to nine months from the time an application is made. I hope this new organization will speed up the service.

There are some things I have to disagree with. One is that matter of concern we have in most of the government legislation these days, and that is the amount of discretion. Looking at the old Act, there were 134 sections, and Bill 144 had only 24 sections, I think it is. The reason it has been so condensed is that a lot of the detail in the statute has been taken out and the Minister is given a lot more power to do things by discretion and regulation. We have to disagree with that just in principle. It's not only the royalties that the Minister may prescribe entirely at his discretion, as the former speaker said.

But there are regulations regarding staking procedures, form and manner of application for leases, the Mines Regulation Act to apply on development and production of minerals, regulations regarding grouping, regulations regarding submission of technical information and so on. All of these things that could be of great importance to people involved in this relatively small field of mining endeavour appear to be saddled with too much red tape, which is so easy to prescribe in the regulatory area.

Now my understanding is that under the provisions of the bill there will be a certain area of British Columbia designated as placer mining areas. One of the difficulties arises with what may happen in the case of placer mining finds or prospects outside of those designated areas. Now there may be other areas designated as definitely non-placer particularly fragile streams and so on.

But how about the grey areas that's neither designated as placer nor as non-placer? What provisions are there? I can't see any in this bill, and I've looked quite carefully. What provisions are there

[ Page 4081 ]

for the recording of title or a lease on a placer find outside of a designated area? Let's just suppose that a find were made, and that it were environmentally not objectionable.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would have to be considered whether it would be designated or not.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister says that it would have to be considered whether the area could be designated or not. I appreciate that, but what protection of title in the meantime would the finder have? Perhaps the Minister could suggest how this problem might be dealt with, because it seems a very real problem to me.

It's all the more a problem when one considers that placer mining, in theory — though not a great deal in the past of British Columbia — is applicable to other minerals than gold. It applies to the platinum group of minerals and some of the gem stones and things of this kind. If all that's going to be designated are the historic gold-producing areas of the province, we may get into these kinds of problems. It seems to me a real one and that's why I raise it.

I also raise with the Minister the transitional question of what happens to claims and leases outside of areas that will be designated under the Act. Section 23 suggests that it can be renewed under the new Act subject to that Act. Now could the Minister in closing debate on second reading interpret that for me?

Does that mean that it's completely at his discretion whether it will be renewed or is there a firm and definite right to renew — even outside a designated area? Many of these leases are, of course, leases that people may have put a great deal of time into or, in some cases, have purchased at some capital cost. It would seem to me wrong if there were a complete discretionary right to cancel without compensation simply because they're outside a designated area.

I see nothing in this Act to stipulate the size of the lease. That may simply be an oversight. The old lease was a quarter of a mile by half a mile. I see nothing to define that and say that the new lease is the same size or some different size. Perhaps the Minister in closing debate could confirm that the intention is to continue the size of the lease.

Given that an individual could have two leases only, according to the terms of this Act, I'd ask him to deal with the problem of a lengthy gold-stream in pockets which might well cover, not in aggregate a great deal of placer mining territory but really all one find, and with two leases insufficient to cover it because of a great deal of barren area in between the pockets.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There'd be a mile.

MR. GIBSON: Well, there'd be a mile….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, the two leases would be one mile in length. But there could be a productive stream-bed, say, two miles in length, essentially part of the same operation. The Minister might deal with that question as to how there could be such consolidation. I think it's an important part of the principle of the bill, Mr. Premier, and I want to cover it at this time.

That, I think, concludes the major questions I have to ask the Minister at this point. I'll have other questions in committee.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate these questions the Hon. Member asks because I think they're very vital. In my press release I say that the lease will continue as now, that there will be only two leases allowed to any individual in any calendar year. I mean, that's quite definite. The renewal of leases would be automatic provided they fulfilled all the requirements as they were laid out before. I suppose, if the environmental people found that they were not living up to their agreements environmentally, they could lose their lease too.

But the claims will be the same. The idea is of not allowing more than two. I think that placer mining should reach out to as many people as possible, because placer mining is somewhat of a recreational thing today. It's not the same as it used to be in most cases.

The royalty situation in the Act was there all the time. It's only there mostly if there were a real bonanza hit. But when you look at the amount of gold that was reported to the department, it's insignificant. I don't think that it would warrant much discussion in regard to royalties.

The rentals, of course, have gone up from $30 to $50 a year on a placer lease.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not going to assess any royalties?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't say that. I said that it's in the Act the same as it was previously. What you've done so far at the present time is so insignificant that it's not worth talking about. But if you were to hit a real bonanza like the gold rush of the Yukon…. But I don't expect that you ever will again in the province, because it's pretty finely covered over. But the royalties in the other Act, of course, apply to lode mining for gold. That would….

[ Page 4082 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I don't think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you say you won't accept the royalty.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, if gold is designated as a mineral to assess a royalty on it, then, I mean, I would be contrary to the law if I said definitely that we won't assess royalties. If there were a bonanza hit in placer mining even, we might be able to get some return for the people of British Columbia. So that's all the point of that.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 15

Bill 144, Placer Mining Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: amendments to Bill 132, intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974.

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 132.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

COAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: amendments to Bill 92, intituled Coal 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 92.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We object to amendments brought in right after a bill has passed second reading, and we wish to record our protest by way of division.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you want a division, go ahead.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, we've asked for a division.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a crazy way to amend bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I took a message.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know, in My recollection, where an amendment has been called to a division, whether it be on the order paper or by message, but if the Hon. Members wish to Pursue the matter, I'll call a division. Do you wish to have that?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

[ Page 4083 ]

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 162 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 15.

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT

ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the government is conscious of the people's desire to have recreation facilities available for their leisure time. It is also conscious of the increasingly heavy land-tax burden being experienced by recreational land, especially in municipal areas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come on over Garde, we know you are looking for a home. (Laughter.)

The Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act is therefore being proposed as a method of enabling land to be used for recreational purposes by the public without a heavy land-tax burden as imposed by the former administration. All those who would join Social Credit will have to take the guilt of its past.

The bill will enable the recreational land user such as golf courses, ski clubs, rod and gun clubs or the like, to enter into an agreement with the government to dedicate its land in perpetuity for the recreational purpose, and to offer access to their facilities to the public. In return, during the term of agreement, the government will reimburse the club for the property taxes paid. Even poor little Oak Bay will get a break.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your big hang-up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's my big hang-up? There are more poor people than rich people. The poor people have made the rich people rich. If there is any purpose for this party, it is for some equalizing in our society, Mr. Member.

If you want to make that my hang-up, then let's make it my hang-up. We represent the poor and the ordinary working people of this province; you represent the rich. That is what the division is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The paternalistic approach to the poor. Oh yes, the great big right-wing Liberal Party looking for a home, putting the knife in your own leader while he's sitting here trying to do a job, even opposing the introduction of amendments. That's all the support you give that Member.

This bill is to encourage green belts — and the long livelihood of some political leaders — through the province, particularly by the way of golf clubs, and to assist in maintaining our present environment — that doesn't protect the Liberal leader. By providing this type of financial assistance the province hopes that more land will be devoted to recreational purposes for all of our citizens.

I now move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, after listening to that smoke screen and cover-up, I just want to congratulate the government, particularly the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), for letting the Minister of Finance bring in a bill like this — inadequate as it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are not particularly concerned with the Premier's personal hang-ups. We are concerned with how they affect the people of British Columbia as a whole. We feel that the need for a bill such as this or an alternate suggestion, which will be put forward by my colleagues and discussed fully, that the current utilization of section 328 of the Municipal Act is necessary in light of the fact that, firstly, in British Columbia, but one year ago, the very man who just spoke, the Hon. Minister of Finance, (Hon. Mr. Barrett) interfered with a bill by the former administration which endeavoured to recognize that there had to be a reasonable limitation on taxes of people's land in British Columbia in light of the growing inflation that was becoming evident.

This Premier and Minister of Finance interfered, Mr. Speaker, not on the basis of sound and logical assessment knowledge and financial thinking, but for political reasons, with the resulting effect that a political decision in multiplicity worked an extreme hardship on many homeowners, many public recreational areas and many other people in this province, in relation to taxes.

Also, as reflected by the Premier's words and much action of his legislation, which causes us to feel that there is a strong need for this type of an Act, is the fact that this government has contributed so handsomely and so unpalatably to the rising cost of land in British Columbia, whether it is to be used for recreational purposes or for home development

[ Page 4084 ]

purposes. He now had to find some way of equalizing this.

I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is some concern as to whether the inflationary market value of land is, in fact, a fair way to assess people because that represents a value which would be theirs if they could sell it and if they did sell it. I suggest that it doesn't necessarily reflect the ability of people, or a recreational centre in this instance, to pay.

We feel that there is a need, and I agree with the Premier on this point, for ever-increasing recreational opportunities for people in British Columbia, whether it is of a natural means or whether it is through a more formalized programme of golf, tennis, squash, trap-shooting or whatever else interests people. These costs must be kept at a reasonable assessment so that recreation doesn't, as it never has in British Columbia, become a rich-man's preserve on the basis of priority or on the basis of the government having its hand in the pocket of these organizations or these groups too freely in order to fatten its own coffers and not serve the public need.

We feel that there should be complete accessibility to recreational opportunity for all people in British Columbia, in keeping with the own interests and, as I mentioned, within a reasonable cost.

There are some considerable concerns about the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to it in principle. I don't want to go into the details of the various sections, but I would like to touch on them in the broad view.

Our first criticism of the bill would be that it would have been far more effective had it outlined a description of recreational land, and if it has outlined some terms of reference as to what it considered could qualify. There is no description of recreational land in this bill. Once again we see the common kicker of so much of this socialist legislation, complete discretion left to the Minister.

In examining the bill further we see that there is no criteria to be established for public knowledge as to which project, which lands or which recreational groups will be approved. Once again, the socialist kicker-of-kickers — complete discretion left up to the Minister.

In another section, Mr. Speaker, entitled "Form and effect of covenants" we again see no details and no guidelines for public knowledge. The kicker-of-kickers of the socialist government in British Columbia — complete discretion left to the Minister.

In another section we see a questionable view in that there is provision for the reimbursement of total taxes. In other words, the government is intending to let those who qualify, in terms of the Minister's thinking, off scot-free. We feel that it would be more effective to set some basic guidelines, perhaps freezing the taxes at the 1972 or 1973 level, then examine the situation on the basis of future of assessment. We feel that this would be more realistic. Then if the government wanted to openly take over, openly, any recreational areas, they would not, in essence, be supporting forgiven taxes. They would have been receiving, in the interim, a fair form of taxes with their, then, reason for meeting some sort of a diminishing commitment.

I would like to see, in the bill, a level frozen at the 1972 or 1973 level, and that the bill should apply from then on, with many alterations.

Another factor that is of considerable concern in the bill is that there are no time limits for agreements. It is completely open-ended. Again, it is completely up to the discretion of the Minister.

When one combines this complete discretion left to the Minister and this complete lack of guidelines and examines section 7, which I don't intend to go into in detail, Mr. Speaker, one becomes deeply concerned. I've drawn a little hammer beside this section in my bill because this is hammer legislation. It leaves the whole bill open to serious conjecture, and it certainly is likely to preclude any private owner from taking reasonable opportunity from this bill.

It also follows again with another thread added to the growing rope that is threading its way through the British Columbia legislation, and leaves ample room for what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has publicly called "persuasion by taxation."

Again, it raises the suspicion that this government through various means, some open and some not open, is intent on not only controlling but eventually owning all the land in British Columbia. It's tremendous discretion in the form of an unanswerable club on the part of the Minister to other sections which are completely open-ended and left to the discretion of the Minister.

I'm concerned, in examining all these facets, Mr. Speaker, that in the bill, to my knowledge — and I certainly stand ready to be corrected if I'm wrong — there is no appeal procedure should any sections of this Act be applied for an individual who feels that the Minister, who has complete powers, complete discretion with no guidelines, chooses to utilize section 7, which virtually gives him the right to take over a person's land and to reapply back taxes from the date that the Act was taken advantage of or utilized.

Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that in good faith a community golf course, for example, could enter into an agreement with the government. It's conceivable that they could pay as high as $2,000 a month in taxes, which would be forgiven in agreement with the Minister. Then the Minister would turn around and for some reason of his own, not necessarily required

[ Page 4085 ]

by the bill to be explained, decide that the association was not complying with the regulations. He is in a position where he can take over the land and he could apply a complete repayment of the money — that $2,000 a month — plus an interest rate of 8 per cent per annum, which I believe would be compounded.

He could virtually liquidate that property for no specific reason given to the public or to those people. In fact, he could be fulfilling an intent which he hasn't made public — and that is to control the land of British Columbia. I believe that this is a dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker, and that it is the wrong way to go about this type of legislation.

Another matter that concerns us seriously, in light of what I mentioned where everything is left to Ministerial discretion, is that there's an incredible hammer in the form of the authority of the Minister to virtually take over a person's land if he so wishes without major reason in section 7. There's no provision in the bill for comprehensive public disclosure of the effect of the bill as it's applied by the Minister.

So we have a situation with no guidelines, no terms of reference, complete discretion left to the Minister, no appeal procedure, and no way that one community can examine what the Minister's doing in another community. There's no way that a trampoline court, for example, in Nelson can check to see how the Minister might be applying the same thing in Oak Bay or the North Okanagan.

It leaves a great deal of room for the possible suggestion of political decisions on the part of the Minister who's administering the bill, and to my knowledge there is no provision for an annual public disclosure of who is getting what exemptions for what reason and how much. I would very much like to see that incorporated in the Act if the government wishes to pursue this course.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will speak on another aspect of the bill under second reading and we'll be prepared to discuss it further in the committee stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting for this bill in principle. We feel that it's a good thing to encourage dedication of land for recreational purposes. We feel that the bill will aid in this, although there are some aspects of it which during the committee stage we will be going into.

I am pleased that the bill includes private owners as well as clubs, as well as collective ownership. It's perfectly clear from this that people who operate recreational facilities Commercially and attempt to recover their costs and perhaps provide themselves with some income will be able to take advantage of this.

The question I raise for the Minister at this stage is that this deals only with the dedication of certain individual properties; it does not deal with dedication of a club or of more than one property. For example, we have in Victoria two clubs; one has just moved its location and the other will have to do so at the end of the year.

Victoria Fish and Game had to move from its location in Goldstream up onto the Malahat and the Victoria Gun Club is being moved out of the property that it has at Metchosin, and it doesn't know where it's going. This particular piece of legislation seems somewhat inflexible in that if property is dedicated and then circumstances change — more housing goes up around a particular piece of property — the recreational facility is no longer feasible in that particular area.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the fact is that we're dealing with recreational land, not necessarily greenbelt. That's the point that I'm trying to make to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the title of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I've read the title of the bill.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is one of the difficulties you face when you try to incorporate two concepts in one bill. The fact is, there may well be distinctions. I've raised one of them, which I trust you'll put your mind to instead of trying to ignore it. The fact is that where you have a property which may cease to become, for any reason whatsoever, feasible for the particular sport or recreation, the club or group may wish to move. If they have dedicated their land, they may find themselves in the position of not being able to recover adequate funds to relocate elsewhere.

It's a problem I raise for the Minister of Finance because, from his comments a moment ago, he clearly hasn't thought of that particular aspect. Change of location could be a difficulty, and I trust that some thought will be given to that.

I appreciate that this is set up by way of a direct charge under section 10 on a consolidated revenue fund and revenue surplus appropriation account, and not by way of the funding of some of the other recreational facilities which we have seen in this House. Better I think that the costs be clear, that the costs come out of the budget in a regular sense where it can be seen and not be hidden away, tucked under some fund which is essentially investment income on investment in B.C. or some other Crown corporation.

The bill has one major failing, we feel, and that is

[ Page 4086 ]

the amount of discretion which the Minister has. Interpretation of sections makes it perfectly clear that only recreational land which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes can be considered. Further on it goes into such covenants and agreements as the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council or the Minister concerned would be willing to put on.

We're concerned that some of the restrictions may be onerous. We can't tell from the legislation. We can't tell whether the proposal will involve turning golf clubs into putting greens or into bowling lawns, whether there will be restrictions on who will use them or covenants insisting that they be wide open. We just don't know what that might be.

We feel that this is a defect in the bill that there isn't a little more precision as to what the Crown will insist upon when it goes in with the owner into a covenant. We trust that some light will be shed upon this by the Minister in closing the debate and also in the committee stage.

Apart from that, we appreciate the fact that the government is taking steps to encourage recreational land protection as well as the greenbelt protection. We feel that some of the assessment changes that have taken place would have totally destroyed recreational facilities, not just for the wealthy people, as the Premier seems to think, but also for those of more modest income who would have felt the brunt of the increased taxation a great deal swifter than those who have the money to pay increased club fees and other things.

The previous legislation was working proper hardship upon a large number of people who looked to various clubs for recreational facilities and could not afford to buy their own recreational facilities. It's the less wealthy that were first hit and most affected. We trust that the bill will rectify what was a clear failure of government policy to date.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We certainly would like to support this bill. I just want to make a few comments. It probably doesn't surprise the Premier that the Member for Oak Bay would support this bill, even though we have our individual differences as to the relative wealth of Oak Bay and the population distribution age wise, income wise and otherwise.

I accept some of the criticisms that the other Members of the opposition have made. The bill lacks detail. But I think that if one is to be fair in debating the principle of this bill, one must realize that it is a somewhat uncertain field that we are getting into if for no other reason than that leisure time is on the increase for most citizens. There is a tremendous increase in the ways in which they are developing recreational pursuits. Some of the factors that apply today didn't exist, say, 10 years ago.

In attempting to provide some encouragement, as the title of the bill makes very plain, for the preservation of greenbelts and also to encourage recreational land to remain as such, I think the bill is very well worthwhile. I congratulate the government for attempting to move into this field.

I don't think that anybody should be in any doubt as to what kind of figures we are talking about though. The taxation on the two golf courses in the riding of Oak Bay has more than doubled this year compared to last. The tax figure at one was $28,000 and it went up to just over $56,000. The Victoria Golf Club taxation went from $26,000 to $56,000. These are round figures that I have quoted.

So there is no question that the cost of continuing to participate in this particular form of recreation in a relatively urban area is increasing very considerably. I think it should be made very plain that golf in particular is certainly one of the recreations which remains available to citizens of all ages.

Here again, if we have to take Oak Bay as an example, there are a large number of elderly people playing golf in that part of the city. We are very proud of one man by the name of Arthur Thompson who is 104 years old and plays golf regularly. In fact, he is a national figure. He has figured on CBC television nationally because of the very unique age at which he still plays golf.

We have many very clear advantages of preserving not only the golf course as a greenbelt but making it reasonably available cost wise to all these different age groups.

Another point that has perhaps been missed not only today but on other dates on this subject is that I think — in fact, I know — that golf courses have not been asking for fixed assessments. The brief that was presented when we discussed this last year made it very plain that they merely were looking for some reasonable measure of control. Since the cost of living and other costs were rising — the wages of workers and the cost of operating a golf course — all they were trying to do was raise the membership dues by perhaps the same percentage as the general cost of living. But when the taxes on the land suddenly double in one year, this was the red light as far as most of the golf courses in this country were concerned.

I think that the principle of this bill makes it very plain that the crux of the bill is summed up in two words: "public access." There is no doubt in my mind that politically governments have to look very closely at the provision of public taxpayers' money being used for the benefit of a selected segment of the population. That, to my mind, is the nub of this bill and the reason that the Minister of Finance has had the bill written in a rather vague and diffuse way which, as the other Members of the opposition have mentioned, lacks definition. But I happen to, I think,

[ Page 4087 ]

understand why it is written this way, and I can see the difficulties that lie ahead in determining the degree to which taxation can be rebated in such facilities as golf clubs dependent upon public access.

The Minister of Finance should be assured that as far as this party goes, and as far as I go personally, any recreational facility such as a golf club which clearly has the policy that only private members of that club shall be allowed to use it cannot expect to be subsidized by public money.

At the present time many of the golf clubs certainly have ready access by any member of the public on payment of green fees and, incidentally, contribute considerably to the tourist industry. One reason that this bill has to be a bit vague is that there are as many variations in kind of facilities and in the method by which the facilities function in relation to public access that I think it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to write a bill which spelled out exactly the conditions that are to be applied under the bill to any one specific golf club. I keep mentioning golf clubs because it is the one I know most about.

Certain parts of the bill certainly are vague, particularly when one talks about entering into agreements and inclusion of covenants where again, as I say, at this point in time it is very difficult to determine exactly how binding the covenants would be.

The concept, again, as far as golf courses are concerned, that they must be dedicated in perpetuity, I don't think presents any problem at all. If it is, as it is in most cases, owned by the members, and since the general thrust in society today is to preserve greenbelts, I can't think that society as a whole would accept, let us say, the subdivision of the golf courses in the riding of Oak Bay.

Be that as it may, I feel that we will have to approach this bill and its implementation with a fair degree of objectivity and realize that although the bill doesn't spell out the detail that perhaps some recreational facilities would want, a great deal of experience will be required to determine exactly what golf courses and other facilities will have to do, or what they will have to include in the covenants, to qualify for rebate of taxation.

The last point I would like to make is that the Minister of Finance will, I hope, enter into some kind of consultation with representatives of the various recreational facilities that would be likely to apply for agreements under this Act.

The Premier and Minister of Finance was kind enough to have one of his staff meet with certain representatives of the B.C. Golf Association some time ago. It is my impression that both sides learned a great deal from the issue. I would like to think that possibly the bill we have before us is in some way related to that degree of consultation that went on.

But since this bill is breaking new ground and opening up new possibilities both for government and for people, and involves certain risks for both — risks by the owners of recreational land that they might get into some binding agreement which they would later regret, and risks that this government might be accused of subsidizing private concerns with public money — and benefits to both sides, I would just like to comment that the other Community Recreational Facilities Fund provides public money for non-profit facilities which, in large measure, serve a younger age group — the ice arenas, swimming pools and so on. I think that I see a parallel in this kind of proposal for subsidy or tax relief which would tend to help the middle-aged or senior citizen in society to be subsidized on such recreational pursuits as golf.

On that final note I really hope that the Minister will tell us to what degree he or his staff are in liaison with Lands and Forests, or are in liaison with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), when he winds up debate on second reading, and that he will, in fact, enter into some fairly detailed discussion and consultation with the various people concerned in these different types of facilities. I think whatever this bill does, it offers flexibility. I hope the degree to which greater definition is to be put into the bill by amendment later or by regulation will be closely related to the Minister really discussing in the widest possible detail the whole implication of the bill and the thrust of the bill with the people most concerned.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I will attempt to be brief in my remarks. Certainly the bill, in spite of its deficiencies, is worthy of support. I echo the words of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), in the hope that it will be judiciously used. If it is found to be lacking in some respects then changes will be made at following sessions.

I will attempt to hopefully resist the temptation to point out to the Minister of Finance problems with respect to this simplistic attitude that everyone who plays golf is wealthy and if one speaks in favour of golf, one is in the clutches of the wealthy. Perhaps we can debate that some other time.

The Minister has taken some time on a fishing boat; he is going to spend some time working on a railway. One of these days I'd like him to mix with some golfers at other than Shaughnessy or some of the other golf courses which distress him so much.

In his opening remarks he spoke — and I assume the words were prepared by someone in the Ministry of Finance — of the increasingly heavy tax burden in municipal areas. It is important, I think, to point out that that is not solely the problem area. Indeed, in many parts of the province under provincial control we have seen dramatic and in some cases almost

[ Page 4088 ]

unbelievable assessment increases.

I am going to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to describe one parcel of land which I trust will be assisted by Bill 15. This is golf course property on Galiano Island which carries the name of the Galiano Golf and Country Club. It sounds rather grand, but I assure you it's a very modest and popular spot. The country club aspect, as such, is not fully apparent when one visits the property. It is a small course; it is enjoyed by a number of people who are retired and of moderate means who live on Galiano Island or live on other Gulf Islands and also enjoyed by visitors.

The present dues structure — and I would like to think that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is listening to this description of a typical rural golf course — for a playing family is $147 a year; for a playing single male, $90; for a playing single woman, $68; juniors, $27, in each case per year. There's a social membership of $20 a year.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, green fees for visitors are very modest and comparable to those found in other small communities throughout British Columbia. They provide about one-half of the club's total revenue in the course of the year. The course is open without restriction to anyone who wishes to use it at any time, weekday, weekend, summer or winter.

The owner of the land was badly shaken — and that's probably an understatement — to learn that for 1974 his property assessment was $67,105. This compares with a 1973 assessment of $6,459. In one year from $6,459 to $67,105!

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) has heard about this; the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) — I'm sorry that none of them are in their seats at the moment — had it brought to his attention by individuals with whom he is in contact on Galiano Island. There was correspondence with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

The golf course owner does not wish to retain the property over the next few years. He would be very anxious to sell it, ideally to the province for continuing recreational use, golf course and ancillary activities which, as the new owners, the Crown might wish to introduce. He is particularly worried about being forced to the point where he would have to sell it to foreign interests. He does not want to do that. He has not presented this as a threat in any way, shape or form, but he knows there is no one on the island, individually or as a group, who can buy this approximately 25-acre parcel. He sees, failing the kind of assistance which is proposed in this bill that he would be required to sell it, in all probability to someone from the United States or another foreign country.

The community has examined ways and means of acquiring it, and that has proven absolutely impossible of being accomplished.

The club membership, as I indicated, consists largely of retired residents. In fact, the current membership includes only three players under the age of 44. The club is a community asset. It is important not only to Galiano Island but the southern Gulf Islands and, indeed, to the southwestern coastal area. It's most attractive; it has a couple of small buildings on it — nothing particularly fancy or grand, as I indicated earlier. It is, Perhaps, the most important recreational facility on a relatively sparsely-populated gulf island.

If it is likely that this bill will assist an individual such as Mr. Aston, the owner of this land the owner for quite some time I might point out to find a way out of the very difficult position in which he has been placed…. He has been to the Land Commission; he has been to the Capital Regional District; he has talked to several Ministers, as I indicated earlier. In no particular area could he find the mechanism or the willingness to purchase the land for continuing public use.

I think that when an individual who is attempting, with very little personal income accruing from the operation…. I have somewhere here his revenues over the last number of years. His "salary" — and he has that in quotes — has ranged from a high in 1966 of $4,246 to a low in 1971 of $1,930, with an average of $3,000 for the remaining years. This is one of the wealthy golf course owners to whom the Minister of Finance has referred on more than one occasion in the past. He is an individual who has a delightful piece of property and enjoys seeing other people use it and enjoy it and would like to see it remain in that use after he dies.

There is no way an individual such as this, or many others who find themselves in similar circumstances, can stand the kind of assessment increase of $6,400 for one year and $67,000 for the next year.

I hope the Minister will attempt to learn more about the golfing fraternity in British Columbia. I am not one of their numbers but I do recognize this as an important recreational resource in the province. I support this first attempt to assist that kind of resource and others which fall into the same category.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): One of the tragedies of being in this House on a beautiful June morning is that we could be out on the golf Courses. One thing I wanted to do was to propose a golf game between all the Members. I was eager to do this. I talked to the four golf courses in my riding when we were discussing them last fall. All of us should have a golf match.

There's no better golf course than the Pitt Meadows Golf and Country Club, which the Minister of Finance knows and lived only a few miles from for five or six years.

[ Page 4089 ]

This is obviously an excellent piece of legislation. I would like to think it's really a motherhood thing, it's permissive.

Mr. Speaker, in the Municipal Act, which has been referred to, section 328 — the permissive, exemption from taxation section — I'd like to know what has really been done with that? It's all very well to have that section and also the facility in this new bill, Bill 15. But I find that the tragedy of section 328 is…. I'm not aware of a golf course, certainly not in my riding, that has taken advantage of something that's been on the books for many years. In other words, making a legal commitment or contract with that municipality for, at least, not all — I realize it's not all the taxes — but certainly half of the general taxes.

In other words, they aren't really that sincere about going all out and ensuring in perpetuity a recreational facility. I gather there are legal problems with the word perpetuity, maybe the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) could explain in legal terms just what perpetuity means because I've heard varieties of interpretations of that.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Right. But this is good legislation….

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, the lawyers can't agree on what that is; theologians can, but not lawyers.

This is excellent; it encourages the use of recreational land. I think the cynics can remember there has been permissive legislation before. It hasn't been used. It's all very well to say you want something for recreation in perpetuity, yet you also want to have the option, it seems, as a club, to subdivide in the future. I'm aware of some clubs that have been crying to us. They've been very upset about it, yet at the last minute they've come in and applied for a land-use contract, and possibly might subdivide.

I'd like to think these people really are sincere. I believe the people in my riding, the four…. Actually, there's one that's private, it's owned by Harrison Hot Springs Hotel, but the other three — one of which is municipal, one in Maple Ridge — are clubs which have excellent programmes. They do have access, anybody can pay green fees. They have excellent youth and senior citizens' programmes. But unfortunately I've got to confess, neither have signed the document with the municipalities, which they could have, saying that they want to, in perpetuity, remain an open recreational facility.

This is good legislation. I know everybody will approve of it. I also hope that some of us can get out on the golf courses.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wanted to remind the Premier, when he spoke about the increasing taxes for golf courses under the previous administration, that the taxes on golf courses have doubled and tripled since your administration took over, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing is: I want to echo some of the earlier comments made about the people who use golf courses. The Premier doesn't have any idea who gets out on the golf course and uses those courses for recreation.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: He doesn't want to, that's right, because of some silly little hang-up he has which has been carried over and expressed in this House on a number of occasions. Now I'd like the Premier, really, to come out with me on a local golf course in Langley on a Sunday at about 5 or 6 o'clock and you'll find that that golf course is literally swarming with young people of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age, juniors who are not from rich families but who love to get out in the sunshine and play golf — and in the rain, as a matter of fact.

Golf courses are used more and more by every segment of society. The working man, who the Premier says he champions, gets out and plays golf every opportunity he can because it's a cheap and easy form of recreation that everyone can use. The Premier must start to recognize that these are the people who are getting out and playing golf. They're not rich men and rich women who are on the golf courses. It isn't expensive to be a golfer. It's one of the most economical recreational pursuits a person can follow. Once the Premier can get rid of these little problems of his and recognize that it's the young people and the elderly who are using those courses now — everybody is a potential golfer.

I'm pleased to hear the Member for Dewdney talk about the provision of the present Municipal Act. And I'd like the Premier to tell us what we're going to do with section 328 (a) of the Municipal Act.

About a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister, when he brought in his promised legislation for golf courses, whether he'd repeal that section of the Municipal Act. He said no, he wouldn't. I wonder whether he's read it since and what he is going to do with it. It's there and it provides a vehicle whereby golf courses now can be designated, and could be expanded with a simple amendment to include any kind of recreational activity or recreational property.

The Member for Dewdney wondered why more golf courses hadn't taken advantage of this provision. I expect it was simply because there wasn't very much necessity. They didn't see their taxes doubling

[ Page 4090 ]

and tripling in one year, so they didn't see the need to come and ask to be included under these provisions of section 328 (a) of the Municipal Act.

The Member for Dewdney obviously hasn't read it anyway, because it doesn't say under that section that they will rebate half of the taxes; it doesn't say that they have to dedicate in perpetuity, but only that they have to dedicate for a minimum of a I 0-year agreement.

Things change and sometimes the needs in a community change. There must be some kind of provision that will allow a municipality to take a look at things after 10 years or 15 years or 20 years and see if there shouldn't be some other use put to that property. An owner may want to get out of that property. He should have the opportunity to change his involvement with the property, and be compensated fully for it if the government locks him into some kind of a situation.

Section 328 (a) of the Municipal Act Mr. Speaker, freezes taxes, upon application, at a fixed level so that the owner of the property still contributes in part to his community in the form of taxes. It does set a definite term for agreement and it creates a formula for sharing with the municipality or the province, if the province wanted to take over that responsibility, if the use changes before the end of the agreement. So the municipality shares in any increased value that property may realize because of a changed use.

It also provides for the repayment of taxes with interest if any part of the land under designation is sold. Now, I'd like to see the municipalities retain the control over these kinds of arrangements rather than have them vested once again in the hands of a single Minister who will have total control and total authority, such as happens in this Act.

I don't believe that the Act had to be kept vague. I think it should have spelled out terms of agreement; it should have spelled out terms of conditions that will be entered into. I think it certainly should have spelled out what constitutes a breaking of a covenant because that's an incredible guillotine hanging over the heads of the owners as long as they're entered into this agreement.

Given the proof of performance of this government in the past, and its disrespect for contractual agreements, I would expect that that one section in the new bill, section 7, will ensure that no private owner will ever enter into any kind of an agreement with this government unless it makes it much more clear that they don't have the opportunity at some future time, after 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, of coming along and laying some kind of a charge on them that they haven't lived up to their contractual agreements, so they are going to have to repay all the money the government, and with interest, which is a definite possibility under the terms of this new bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill does take just one more shot at eroding municipal responsibilities. I really believe that we'd have been better off to have allowed the municipalities to deal in their own way — with assurance from the province that they don't suffer financially for it — with the people who have recreational facilities in their own communities.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Minister of Finance would be very brief in closing the debate, but I wish he'd been a little longer because having listened to the debate so far, I must say I'm completely confused as to what the purpose of this bill is.

There's no charge in section 328 (a) of the Municipal Act. If any municipality wants to enter into this kind of an agreement, which is provided under the Municipal Act, they're free to do so. If the municipality wants to enter into any of the arrangements under section 328 (1 ), as they apply to a private organization. they're at liberty to do so. But they do so in the full knowledge that, their municipality has to bear the revenue loss.

This legislation, as I read it — and I don't think it applies to golf courses in particular, it's a wide range of lands available for recreation — the government is saying that if the owner, and it must be a private owner or a society or an organization, either lands held in fee or held under lease, if that organization wants to come to the government and say, "We're prepared to enter into a commitment with you with respect to the continued recreational use of properties," then the government is prepared to respond by saying: "We will remove from you the management of this particular recreational facility, the annual burden of tax, that it won't cost the municipality any money."

Now I don't see what the problem is in this respect. If the Minister of Finance has to apply conditions in this regard, then it's up to the owners to decide whether they want to meet the conditions. It's as simple as that.

It is almost impossible these days to carry on any well-functioning recreational endeavour unless you have some management. In many instances the management is composed of a non-profit club or organization. There are no restrictions to membership, there is a minor annual fee charged to participate in order to pay for the stationery and paper clips. It's these kinds of organizations that will be assisted by this kind of legislation, because they are facing annually an increasing burden of property tax.

For the Social Credit to speak in some way objecting to this legislation, when I consider that they wouldn't do anything to take this burden off of these organizations…. They left it entirely up to the

[ Page 4091 ]

municipalities. They would say to the municipalities: "If you want to give some relief, you go ahead and give it. But don't come to us and ask for your lost revenue to be made up."

I think it's a step forward. Now maybe the Minister of Finance, or some Minister of Finance at a future time, might be criticized. If the conditions are laid down by the Minister in determining what is an improved recreational land, if the Minister starts to draw very fine narrow lines, then the Minister is properly to be criticized. But when we are taking this first step in what I think is the right direction to go, it would be impossible, without wisdom that I don't think any one of us in this House has, to draw the parameters which would define and improve recreational facilities.

I can think in my constituency, for example, of at least half a dozen organizations who will have the opportunity of taking advantage of this legislation. I am sure there are others. But to attempt to define how a person would qualify with the land they own, or with the land that they hold under lease, for relief under this particular legislation would, at this stage, be impossible.

I think it will take some experience, and experience will indicate whether or not the Minister is being too restrictive in what he will approve, or whether he's being too generous. I think that after we have had an opportunity to assess the performance of this legislation, then perhaps we can suggest to the Minister that he make some appropriate change. I think it's a good idea.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know that it's necessary to make political statements, That's really the essence of the divisions that exist between us in terms of various groups seeking power related to differences in philosophy.

I appreciate very much the comments of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who has pointed out a bit of the history leading to the introduction of this bill. It's true that the Municipal Act had an avenue for achieving almost the same results as what this bill wants to achieve. The fact was that very few people took advantage of that because the municipalities did not receive financial assistance from the senior government.

The senior government didn't have the flexibility under Social Credit) consider the necessity of assisting the Municipalities in this very worthwhile endeavour of preserving green space.

To narrow the discussion of this bill on golf courses, is in my opinion, a serious error either designed to cover up the past misgivings of the senior administrational lack, of understanding of the social purposes of saving open space.

Now I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how one lives with one's political conscience when there are speeches made by the official opposition, not based on fact, emotionally criticizing the bill because it comes from a democratic-socialist administration. In the same breath they say, however, that they will vote for the bill, recognizing, if one wants to be fair, that the real purpose of this bill was totally frustrated by their own government when a means was available when they were in power if they would only have financed the municipalities to do the same thing.

Mr. Member, what that presents to some of you when you discuss unity is whether or not you can swallow that kind of thinking. You can't do it. So you're going to have to cut some of them out, Mr. Member, when you come together in a new party. What I'm suggesting to you is that today is a cataloguing day, because there are some people you can't take with you into the new party. It's obvious that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) is one and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is another.

They evidence a lack of responsible reasoning in terms of evaluating historical context and the development of programmes. You need a couple with not so many screws loose that you can take. But it's impossible to get on television and sell a criticism of this bill and at the same time vote for it, and absent yourself in terms of reason for the history leading to this bill.

To have the Member for Langley and the Member for North Okanagan, with her gibberish, somehow criticize this bill and leave the historical fact that the municipal section was ignored by the former administration…. At no time do I recall the former administration saying: "We will pick up the taxes if the municipalities will use this section."

Now hypocrisy is the only word I can think of that adequately describes those two speeches by the opposition today. If unity is to be achieved by the free enterprise party, electoral success will not come with that kind of hypocrisy attached to the unity. So catalogue it very well, Mr. Member. Choose your friends very closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very carefully.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very carefully. Weigh it very heavily. I want to remind you, too, of your own speeches about the BNA Act and the right of the province's resource revenue. But that's another matter.

Far be it from me as a social worker to ever put on anyone any amount of the guilt of history into carrying oil their work for the future. But caution is the byword. If you take hypocrisy with you, then you will be condemned to live with it. That means

[ Page 4092 ]

that certain people will be cut out from the chosen few.

That has to include the present official Leader of the Opposition. His philosophy is an extension of what he inherited. He inherited the particular clause of the municipal section that would not receive any comfort, succour, or understanding from the previous administration.

Now to give us a story about golfing and the need for people's recreational interests, that was never in evidence in the programme of the former administration. They believed that the work ethic — which they extended to other people, not so much themselves — was the epitome of recreation in itself. The idea that people should have recreation such as skiing and golfing and swimming only came to their attention as a device for political activity.

This bill is a pioneering experiment. It has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, free enterprise or anything else. It is a recognition of the fact that as our urban societies develop and land pressures increase on what's available for the development of those urban societies, some space must be preserved. That's the reason for the word "perpetuity" and that's the reason for my difference with the leader of the Liberal Party.

I do wish, quite frankly, that those people who raise questions on second reading of a bill, especially the Member for Langley, with severe hypocrisy and criticism would not leave the House without waiting for the closing of the debate. Do they really want answers to their argument, or are they making political points?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that where I disagree with the leader of the Liberal Party is in the argument that sometime in the future there will be an alteration. That is exactly what the bill is designed to prevent. We are dealing with what we hope will become absolutes — just as now Stanley Park is an absolute in terms of the landscape of the City of Vancouver.

Just as now no one, in the frame of reference that we live in today, could possibly carve up Stanley Park, the agreement of perpetuity is to set a condition that regardless of what goes on around this green space, regardless of what goes on around this recreational area, it is to be dedicated for ever as space.

Now the use of space can alter, but the space itself must be left open. That's why the tax relief. Now in terms of the use of space, if it is to be a golf course, fair enough. My earlier remarks about my experience at Shaughnessy Golf Course….

MR. CURTIS: You regret them?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't regret them at all because they are part of the historical context of the development of our society.

There was a time, Mr. Member, much to my regret — 1936 in this province…. I think it is important to learn from history. There were speeches made even this session, Mr. Member, that revealed that people still harbour in parts of their minds the same kind of cliché thinking. There was a speech made by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) which should be enough of a reminder of what is harboured still. Mankind is not perfect. This province has not escaped that kind of history.

At one time, Mr. Member, there were covenants written into land dealings in West Vancouver against Chinese; and I think it is important to remember, because there are still people who harbour these feelings.

In 1936 in this province a provincial election campaign was run on a paid advertisement slogan saying: "Avoid the yellow peril. If you vote CCF, they are going to let the Japanese and Chinese vote." Now that's part and parcel of the history of this province. I did refer to it in terms of my own experience on a golf course. I think it is important to remember that there are still people living and breathing today that think in those terms.

Mr. Member, I agree with you, and I hope with you, in terms of the kind of enlightened era we live in, that this is no longer a fact.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I always say to put it behind me, Mr. Member. But I think it is stupid to forget, because there are people who still attempt to gain power or influence based on irrational emotional argument on race, creed and colour. That goes on in our great neighbouring country, and it goes on in this country as well, both subtly and otherwise. There are such organizations as the Canadian Intelligence Service associated very closely with the Social Credit Party. It has a history of racism, and they have never divorced themselves from that outfit. So I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Member. I'm glad to hear that.

But as a party, that's part of the historical context. So don't ever forget what our society in British Columbia struggled through to get to this point. We are glad we're at this point. We're happy we're at this point. But just don't ever forget, because when you forget and when you put your guard down, then you allow the creeping ignorance to come back in our society and to really poison corners of our social structure that should not be poisoned.

I welcome the activity of golf. I welcome the activity of skiing and everything else that this covers. To each his own. To those who wish to be golfers, let them be golfers. To those who wish to be bull-throwers, let them emulate my championship ability. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed

[ Page 4093 ]

to do two things. Hopefully, in terms of those private clubs, it leaves flexibility to make arrangements with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

There is no way that the government intends to dictate to those clubs who should get on or how they should be run — just as long as we know there is access. That's all. I welcome the comments by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) in terms of describing their own community facilities and the kind of approach there. Flexibility is the key.

What we are interested in is somehow finding a vehicle, through a widely drawn framework of law, to let people have at a minimum of cost access to facilities, whether they are private or public. If it means some bending, some manoeuvering and some changing in terms of specific agreements, that can be done — as long as there is a commitment to keep the open space.

So I say to you that this bill is really a very, very good social step forward for all of British Columbia, and I know that every Member will vote for it. But I can't help feeling some pangs of regret at having to be harangued by the Social Credit Members in a hypocritical manner in a bill that they intend to vote for, but when they were in power, did nothing about.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 119, Mr. Speaker.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): This bill provides a fairly wide range of amendments to the current Workmen's Compensation Act. There are a variety of areas of import that are amended by Bill 119. I think perhaps most important of those is the provision for generally increased widows' pensions, not only to existing pensions that have failed to keep pace with the cost of living, with the tremendous inflationary crush, but the widows' pensions that will develop from this point onward.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have sought to generally increase the time-loss benefits for workers who will find themselves disabled temporarily or permanently by industrial accidents.

The top range of earnings on which compensation is based has been increased to $11,200, which will provide for a time-loss benefit rate of $700 per month. and I think brings into closer tune with today's needs the benefits that workers have to receive if they are not to suffer unduly through industrial accidents.

One of the other important areas that we have sought to deal with is the whole question of accident prevention. This, of course, affects the dollars that are paid out in time-loss benefits, in partial disability pensions, and so on. I think it is essential that we take a route similar to that enunciated by my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his preventive health care programme, I think it's prudent to take a similar approach in workmens' compensation and seek to control and minimize the number of industrial accidents and diseases which do in fact occur in the plants and factories of the province. So we have sought to provide more effective inspection means.

We have, for the first time, granted plant safety committees equal right to accompany accident inspectors on their tours of plants and factories. This means that the workers' committees as well as management will have the right to accompany the accident inspector from the Workmen's Compensation Board and to draw to his attention factors which they feel might place their safety in peril.

Really, the whole basis of accident prevention hinges on the local plant committees. So I think that this move, which puts both management and labour on an equal footing with respect to access to the inspections, is long overdue and is something that indicates that we are indeed sincere in our attempt to minimize industrial accidents, and in our attempts to prevent noxious gases from emanating in plants and factories to the point where they could prove injurious to the health of the local work force.

We have, in addition to the better inspection methods, provided for tighter penalties for those employers who violate the standards set out by the Workmen's Compensation Board. We have had a history, particularly in the areas of excavations, of inspectors showing up on the job and finding unsafe and unshored-up excavations, of issuing closure orders only to find that within a few hours of leaving the operation was underway again with more of the safety provisions ordered by the board attended to.

I think it has to be demonstrated to employers that when the inspector issues an order for the improvement of safety mechanisms, for safety factors on the job, they must receive immediate attention, it must be taken very seriously, and that failure to do so will result in the penalties that are certainly a deterrent, in my view.

One other important area that we have provided under the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act is the inclusion of industrial

[ Page 4094 ]

deafness. I think that more and more in today's society people are becoming aware that high noise levels are not only an irritable factor in our social life, but are also an extreme hazard in terms of the impairment of hearing. I come from an industry, railways, where noise factors are indeed acute and where the hearing of the work force is impaired to a very high degree. I think one of the things we have to do is, first of all, recognize this problem as compensable in order that we can impose a cost on those who pay no regard to high-level noise factors, not only in the plants and factories but in our communities as well.

I think it is possible and desirable that the provinces of this nation can cooperate in setting fair standards of noise levels which are applicable throughout the length and breadth of the nation so that we are getting at the source of how machinery is constructed, and so that we are controlling, at the source, the noise levels that will develop from certain machinery which we import. I think if the provinces can reach agreement on this important question, we will be taking a long step to controlling the cost of industrial deafness that will accrue to industry, at the outset at least.

This is an area in which I have had discussions with my other colleagues, Ministers of Labour from the four western provinces, and indeed on the national basis as well. There is a fair degree of unanimity between those concerned as to this approach to controlling and reducing the problem of industrial noise.

There are a number of other amendments which we will be looking at much closer in third reading and in committee stage of this bill. I think the cost factor is one that the Members will be interested in. I might just indicate at this point that it would appear that the highest cost factor involved in these changes will be the inclusion of the industrial deafness factor.

We also have an amendment which allows the board to phase-in the costs of coverage of the amendments. This means that rather than face the impact of this cost in the first year, it will be allowed to be phased over a period of years and be much easier for the industry to assume.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: No government revenue. This will be raised by levy on the industry, but it will be phased-in rather than met in the first year.

The cost of industrial noise, Mr. Speaker, I think will be the largest factor. We are looking at something, we suspect, like $22 million. Naturally, there are many people out there in the work force now who have some degree of hearing loss. Of course, they will become qualified for pension benefits — partial disability and so on. In some cases, possibly also time loss. So, there will be that large reserve of people out there who, in the first year, will be a high cost factor. Phased over a period of years that will decline. It won't be a constant cost, it will be a high initial cost factor. We are looking, probably, at something like $2.5 million on an annual, year-to-year basis.

In addition to that, the increased levels of pensions, we will increase the levies. We also have the factor of inflation which is an inevitable cost on this kind of a fund. We are possibly looking at a fairly substantial increase in the levies over the next two or three years at least. I will be in a position to deal a little more precisely with that in the committee stage on the bill.

I think it is a good little bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is one which most people on the opposite side of the House have certainly been pushing for in general terms of improved benefits to workers and widows. Certainly I have had great representation from certain Members of the opposition parties.

In designing the amendments I had close consultation with the Employers' Council of British Columbia, with the Workmen's Compensation Committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour, with the Workmen's Compensation representatives of the Teamsters Union, and a variety of others. We have had fairly broad input.

As I say, I think it is a good little bill and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it will be one which the opposition will be happy to support. It gives me pleasure to move second reading.

MR. FRASER: I would first of all like to congratulate the Minister on the explanatory notes, giving a clear review of all the changes here. I think if all the Ministers did this, we would have a lot less harangue in this place than we have.

The changes here are all very desirable. We can also say that the amendments are an improvement to what is already recognized as the best compensation in North America, if not in the whole world. This party certainly supports these amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Like the previous speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on putting forward amendments which we can read in conjunction with the bill — two pages of them, a substantial number. It is a sharp and pleasant contrast to this morning's performance where amendments came in after second reading, which took place last night or this morning. We appreciate this because it makes the ability of the opposition to handle the vast amount of legislation that we have a great deal better. We certainly appreciate that.

I am particularly interested in the Minister's remarks, and in the bill, with respect to the noise level question. I had the medical examination which

[ Page 4095 ]

most of the MLAs are taking. I had confirmed that the industrial deafness which I suffer from in high frequencies, which dates back some 15 years, is still present and hasn't changed at all. Indeed, it is getting slightly worse. This has always been a problem for me personally. It was developed in the days when nobody bothered with ear muffs, and people who operated shipping guns and jack hammers at that time almost took pride in the fact that they had lost hearing at certain decibel levels. It was almost a sign of achievement in the trade. This was quite the wrong thing; there was no protection whatsoever at the time. I, in my turn, have suffered a pretty substantial loss in the higher frequencies. So I am very interested in this particular section of the legislation.

The Minister is quite right in that this is a major problem. But I would like to ask one or two questions on it. The first is: the duty of the employee to take steps to prevent hearing loss. Ear muffs are available; they range in price from $2 to $3 right up to $35. They vary in quality and in effect. I would think there should be some onus on the employee to take reasonable steps to make sure that he himself protects his own ears.

Again, quoting from my own experience, I was always a little distressed — I at that time did not know that I was going to suffer permanent damage — but I was a little distressed by the fact those of us who complained were regarded as simply sissies and the attitude of employees seemed to be that that was one of the things that you simply had to put up with, and if you didn't want to put up with it them get out. That was a distressing thing.

I would like to think that instead of that attitude, the legislation and the Minister's department would insist upon some recognition by the employee of the need to prevent industrial deafness as well as other things.

I don't see this in the legislation. Perhaps I haven't read the amendments closely enough. But I don't see it and I wonder if the Minister would possibly consider a further amendment along that line, so that at least it is recognized in the Act that the employee himself must make reasonable effort to avoid creating the problems.

Only if the employee is safety conscious are we going to have safety. It can't be enforced entirely by working on the employer. Only if the employee is conscious of possible hearing loss are we going to minimize what is, indeed, a very severe industrial health problem.

I wonder if the Minister, in the spirit of good-will, would like to comment a little more about the employee's responsibility for dealing with things such as hearing loss, by taking the necessary measures beforehand to avoid difficulty. In my case I obviously didn't. I guess you could say it is my own fault.

I will say that the whole attitude of the people I work with was one which was not really very conducive to taking reasonable measures to cut down on hearing loss. This probably influenced my attitude as well.

At the time, of course, the safety equipment was not available; the ear muffs were not in common use. One simply suffered, assuming it was temporary.

I am most interested in that. Perhaps the Minister will comment further.

I would like to comment on the extra cost. The Minister said there were going to be increased levies and that they would be fairly substantial. I am quoting his words to him.

Surely there is some information he could give us at this time on the overall costs. If it is going to be a fairly substantial increase in the levy, the employers in question are going to have to pay it. It is going to affect their ability, for example, to pay wages, and in some minor cases it might well be a question of affecting their ability to stay in business. Obviously, if they can't pay for adequate safety measures there is no reason for them to stay in business. It would be helpful if the Minister would give as much information as possible about the increase in cost.

On that point, I wonder whether the Minister would comment a little bit on the fact that this bill, as now written, allows people to claim for previous damage. Yet the people who will be paying are today's employers, not necessarily the same group. In other words, the present-day employer will not only be putting up a fund to pay for the type of problem as it exists at the present time; he will be paying for past mistakes of the government as well as employers and employees. Perhaps this particular burden, which is essentially a social cost and not an industrial compensation cost in the strict sense of the word, could be met by some assistance by the government to the workmen's compensation fund.

I would like to think that it should be assisted. He talked about a transitional period and I must say I didn't quite understand how the transitional period was going to work, if indeed there was to be no government assistance. Surely, whether you delay the claims or whether you have them all in one year doesn't make a great deal of difference if, over a period of two or three of four years, they are all going to have to be met.

I would suggest there is room for some sweetening of the pot by the government in terms of some grant to the workmen's compensation fund so that there can be a smooth transition from the previous legislation to the present legislation without any onerous increase in cost not related to the present risk and present industrial problems.

I would ask if the Minister would comment upon it. I have a number of other questions, most of which are to do with individual sections and would be more appropriate to deal with at the committee stage.

[ Page 4096 ]

MR. WALLACE: I am also very pleased with the general thrust of these amendments. I would like to also express my appreciation to the Minister for the copy of the document outlining the amendments which was provided after the legislation was tabled.

There are one or two points I would like to mention generally and I certainly have a few questions in committee stage. What really delights me, if I can read this correctly, is the Minister's definition of "industrial disease." The reason it encourages me is that I've spent years trying to get what I consider to be justice for citizens and workers who work in asbestos manufacturing and use of lagging of pipes in confined spaces and so on.

If I have any criticism, I am wondering if the Minister has opened the door so wide that he will have a tough time. I will go into it more in committee but I am referring to the fact that, in addition to the definition of "disease," has been added the phrase, "disease includes any disablement resulting from exposure to contamination."

While I am thoroughly in support of that, because I have argued all along that if there is any benefit of the doubt which exists as to why a worker is disabled…I can't say how much I appreciate the Minister's amendment to this definition. I think it shows the real sense of what workmen's compensation is all about. You cannot always prove conclusively that a man has lost 40 per cent of his lung function because he worked among asbestos. You can argue equally that he smokes cigarettes or he indulges in some other practice which impairs his lung function. I think it is a real block on the history of the compensation board in this province that so many men and women had the fight they had to try and get what I consider to be reasonable compensation when it is impossible to prove conclusively that their disability was caused by their employment.

I have another case right now which I am fighting about. It goes back several years. I won't go into all the details in the House. But there are eminent medical people not serving a function on the compensation board who believe this man is suffering from the early phases of asbestosis. The early phases are almost impossible to prove; you can only have circumstantial evidence in the early phases.

This man finally has to go to the trouble of his own expense of going to a European country to come up with some eminent world authorities who say he has the early phase of asbestosis. Still we have the Workmen's Compensation Board saying the evidence isn't conclusive, therefore no compensation.

I have talked about asbestosis every year I have been in this House. I am sure the Members are probably bored to hear again. The fact is this Minister has taken some step in the definition on the very second section of the bill. I would like him to perhaps either in committee or when he winds up second reading comment on the consultation he had with various parties. I am a little surprised — I'll be very frank — that the Minister was allowed to come out with such a wide definition.

As I read this definition, there should be no more problems for workers with lung disabilities who have worked in close contact with contaminants such as asbestos fibres. Incidentally, the world impact — and I really mean world impact — of the exposure on an ever-increasing basis to asbestos will be one of the future environmental factors in public health to a degree which isn't realized generally at the moment. The degree to which human beings are inhaling asbestos particles and fibres from a variety of products throughout our society is on the increase. Some of the recent research on random populations is very enlightening and rather worrying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they coming from?

MR. WALLACE: From drapes and materials and various kinds of fabrics and insulating materials and even decorative materials — like material for drapes and so on which gives off these very small particles. It is only in recent years that the degree to which we are all exposed to it is being realized. World authorities such as Dr. Selikoff and others have done a tremendous amount of research. I am getting a little off the point.

I hope the Minister will comment on this definition of contamination when he winds up the debate.

I also really appreciate the Minister's venture into the area of loss of hearing. I strongly support the attempt to fairly compensate a person who loses hearing. The one area I would simply ask a question on rather than criticize is the degree to which loss of hearing these days is quite frequently related to not only where the person works but to all the noise involved in recreation — to get back to a subject we were on earlier on today. The roar of power motors and saws and drills and recreation of that nature in confined spaces, for example, in the worker's home in his basement where he is cutting wood and using drills and so on.

The only question I would ask is whether or not the scope of this very worthwhile suggestion really falls within the scope to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think it can be reasonably asked: is this not such a general health measure affecting everybody that we are opening up a tremendous area here where definition of clear responsibility will be almost impossible? I certainly wonder whether or not the way in which this is spelled out in section 9 of the bill is much too indefinite and leaves too many loopholes.

[ Page 4097 ]

I would certainly reiterate the point that has been made earlier: there seems to be no mention of the worker's responsibility. In other words, if the worker does not use the mechanisms available in the form of ear defenders on a regular basis, it's questionable whether employers as a particular group should be paying for the consequences of the worker's own irresponsibility. Whether we really buy that argument or not, the fact of the matter is that the combined effect of social noise or noise outside the work area, together with noise at work and the possibility the worker will not use the defences available to him or her, I think strengthens the argument that maybe the whole question of hearing loss is more of a general health problem affecting all citizens and not exclusively workmen.

Of course, as the Minister knows, the previous compensation for loss of hearing was dependent upon loss of earnings. I think it's a step forward to accept the idea that you can become deaf through your work without ever having a day off work. I accept that part of the amendment to this bill.

But I think perhaps the Minister, when closing second reading, should comment on the responsibility of the worker and the Minister's own interpretation of the fact that so much noise outside of the work area can equally contribute to loss of hearing. Should the employers be the only people paying for that in terms of financial compensation to the person concerned?

I don't know if I caught the Minister correctly when he mentioned $22 million as being just the cost of dealing with the loss of hearing or whether this was the figure for the increased cost of pensions.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: It was only to do with hearing. Well, that is a very substantial figure, as the Minister readily acknowledged. In relation to the annual cost of compensation to the employer right now, which I understand is of the order of $80 million a year, this represents a very substantial increase that is anticipated on the basis of the provisions of section 9 to do with loss of hearing.

I wonder if the Minister, in his consultations with the various parties he mentioned, discussed cost and to what extent the representatives of the employers are apprehensive about this additional cost.

Of course, this same section on loss of hearing makes it very plain that there'll be no payment prior to the date of the Act. Certainly, payments will be made to persons who lost their hearing prior to the proclamation of this Act. This means employers of today will be paying for the neglect of many previous employers who may not even now be in business. I don't personally feel that is fair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I wonder perhaps if we could consider those matters that you are discussing mainly in committee, if it goes to committee. It seems to me that you're getting in such detail in each section that you're usurping your rights in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to leave that point, then, by saying that, in principle, the amendments, talking to the principle of the bill, in their essence are good. But one can ask the question, in principle, whether or not it is going beyond the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act in terms of a much wider social commitment than is implied in the basic idea of workmen's compensation.

I'm not questioning for a moment the wisdom of trying to help the people who are going to be helped by these amendments. That isn't what I'm asking. I'm suggesting that, in principle, this bill may be going beyond the basic expectations or requirements of this Act. Because of the very substantial financial impact of this Act to be met only by the employers, in point of fact some of the people concerned should probably be met on the widest, general population basis. That this is the question I'm asking.

I understand a few years ago, when some similar decisions were made, the government did pay $2.5 million a year for four years into the funds of the Workmen's Compensation Board. In the light of the comments I've made, has the Minister considered whether it would be reasonable to look at it on this basis? Has he the assurance of the employers that they're willing to accept the financial consequences of the recommendations that have been made?

This is the third and final comment in principle I would like to make. The Canadian Manufacturers Association has made the point that some of the powers included in the amendments also interfere with the labour-management concept of responsibilities, which really should not be the concern of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Again, we may better deal with that in committee, but I wonder if the Minister, in winding up the debate on second reading, would comment. I'm sure these same representations have been made to the Minister. Does he feel there is no danger of intrusion into the area of labour-management relationships as, for example, the inspector's function where the employer has only one choice of deciding which employee he can designate to accompany the inspector?

There is the question of the failure of an employer to meet certain safety standards. If the plant is closed down, he has to pay a minimum of three days pay regardless of what the collective agreement says, and so on.

Again, the Minister might be opening the door with the best of intentions to areas which really go

[ Page 4098 ]

beyond a reasonable scope of the original intent of the compensation Act in the first place.

There are a host of other questions I'd like to ask. But with your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I'll go into them in committee.

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

I HON. MR. KING: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay didn't leave me too much time to answer that broad range of questions he posed. I agree that many of these points would probably be more appropriately discussed in committee stage. I will attempt to answer the general questions put by the Members, if I can do SO.

The question of measuring industrial deafness, the whole question of measuring asbestosis, silicosis, these kinds of things, is a pretty narrow medical determination, as the Member for Oak Bay is certainly aware of. It always will, I suspect, remain a difficult question in terms of workmen's compensation as to whether or not a condition, a disease or an accident is attributable to the employment of the individual. It's a medical science, I believe, which is not so refined and not so advanced at this point in time that absolutely definitive conclusions can be reached in all these cases.

What we have sought to do here is to provide the Workmen's Compensation Board with some greater flexibility in attributing probable cause, in giving some benefit of doubt where a definitive conclusion based on medical research cannot be made.

On that basis I think it should be pointed out that many of the criticisms over the years and many of the battles that MLAs have had on behalf of constituents — I certainly myself have been involved in many — are not really the fault of the Workmen's Compensation Board, their inspectors and so on. Yet great abuse has been directed toward the board.

They, after all, are the agency which simply applies and interprets the laws that this House passes. I think we should all keep that in perspective when dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Board. If they are bound by the laws that we write to take a stringent position in terms of whether or not workers qualify for benefits, then we can hardly point an accusatory finger at the board. Rather, we should be considering amendments in the House which would achieve the kind of treatment for workers which we feel and which we are responsible as legislators to provide to them.

The industrial deafness thing. It's my feeling the cost will be high in the first year. We're recognizing for the first time industrial deafness. Now, naturally, there are many people out there who over the course of the years have had their hearing impaired. There will be a high peak in terms of costs to provide compensation to those people in the first year.

I am suggesting, in order to mitigate the effect of that high cost, that peak, on the employers, that it be phased in. The board has reserves. Now, certainly, it has been a precedent in the past that the government would out of general revenue subsidize the workmen's compensation fund. I don't think that will be necessary.

But based on the scrutiny, the total effects of these programmes, which can only be estimated, we will keep a very close eye on it. I doubt that that will be necessary.

As far as workers' responsibility to pursue safe work practices and to take the necessary precautions to secure their own safety and that of their fellow workers, there is an obligation in the Act for everyone to comply with board regulations. Beyond that, of course, most companies do have rules for the violation of which penalties and discipline is assessed to the work force. Those two provisions, and the natural interests of people to work safely and to prevent injuries and pain and suffering I think are all of the inducement that is really necessary to ensure that workers do perform their work safely.

The contamination thing, again, I don't think the Act is too broad in that sense. It is similar to any other medical determination. It has to be shown that it is related to the employment of the individual. If that can't be established within reason then I don't think there is any danger of going too broad in terms of the application of the Act.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I think it does.

Finally, in closing, I just want to say one word. The explanatory notes that were issued to all Members of the House have, of course, been changed in the light of recent amendments that have been introduced. I hope that the Members understand that the explanatory, notes will be subject to some modification which we will deal with in committee stage on the bill.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 119, Workman's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) I have the honour to present a report from the Department of Agriculture, the 68th Annual Report.

[ Page 4099 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn I would like to advise the Members that the government whip from Quebec, who was one of the delegation visiting this House, has suffered a seizure of, fortunately, only minor proportion. He is now well enough to return to La Belle Province. I think you will all be pleased to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.