[ Page 4245 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Notre Dame University degree programme. Mr. Bennett — 4245

Construction of UBC and Shaughnessy chronic-care facilities. Mr. McGeer — 4245

Federally subsidized housing not subject to rent stabilization Act.

Mr. Wallace — 4245

Controversy over applications for park attendant position. Mr. Phillips — 4245

Return of share capital from fruit growers mutual. Mrs. Jordan — 4246

Government correspondence with Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4246

Task force to study literacy in public schools. Mr. Wallace — 4246

Bonding of health spas. Mr. Wallace — 4247

Possible legislation to enforce provincial government guidelines for gasoline pricing. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4247

Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159).

Committee and report — 4248

Universities Act (Bill 157). Committee stage.

On section 20.

Mr. Schroeder — 4249

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4249

Mr. Wallace — 4249

Mr. Morrison — 4250

Division on amendment — 4250

Mr. McGeer — 4250

Mr. Wallace — 4250

On section 28.

Mr. Schroeder — 4251

On section 37.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4252

On section 59

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4252

On section 70.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4253

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4253

Mr. Schroeder — 4253

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4254

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4254

Mr. Schroeder — 4254

Report stage — 4255

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4255

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4255

Mr. McClelland — 4255

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4255

Report and third reading — 4255

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act. (Bill 158).

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. McClelland — 4255

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4256

On section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4256

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4256

Mr. McGeer — 4258

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4259

Division on section 4 — 4259

On section 6.

Mr. McGeer — 4260

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4260

Mr. McGeer — 4260

Division on section 6 — 4261

On section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4261

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4261

Report and third reading — 4262

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mr. Chabot — 4263

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4263

Mr. Phillips — 4263

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4263

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4264

Mr. Phillips — 4264

Mr. Chabot — 4264

Division on section 3 — 4264

On section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 4265

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4265

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4265

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4266

Mr. Richter — 4266

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4266

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4266

On section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

Mr. Richter — 4267

On section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

On section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

On section 14.

Mr. Gibson — 4268

Mr. Richter — 4268

Division on section 14 — 4268

On section 16.

Mr. Gibson — 4268

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4268

On section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 4269

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 4269

Division on amendment — 4270

On section 21.

Mr. Richter — 4270

On section 22.

Mr. Chabot — 4270

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4271

Division on section 22 — 4271

Report stage — 4271

Motions Adjourned debate on motion 32.

Mr. McClelland — 4271

Mr. Fraser — 4273

Mr. Dent — 4273

Mr. Chabot (point of order) — 4274

Mr. Speaker — 4274

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4274

Hon. Ms. Young — 4275

Mr. Speaker — 4275

Mr. Chabot — 4275

Mr. Morrison — 4275

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4276

MT. Morrison — 4276

Mr. Smith — 4276

Mr. Chabot — 4277

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4278

Audit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 163). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 4278

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I'd like today to introduce 36 students from Corpus Christi School in Vancouver South. They're accompanied by their teacher, Sister Rosemary. I'm sure the House would wish them welcome here today.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, just to briefly clear up a small item — yesterday, in speaking about the syndicate to handle our bonds, I mentioned the First National Bank of Boston. That was a slip. It should have been the First Boston Corporation, which is the group that led our syndicate ever since our history began.

NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY
DEGREE PROGRAMME

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education: regarding the government's announcement on the purchase of Notre Dame University, could the Minister advise the House whether or not the university will be a four-year institution, and whether or not it will be programmed around special-category four-year degrees?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Indeed, it's quite clear in the original press release that the government will be announcing that decision just before January. No decision is made on what the format of the university will be until January. Hopefully before January, but that will be our deadline.

CONSTRUCTION OF UBC AND
SHAUGHNESSY CHRONIC-CARE FACILITIES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Health. The Minister announced on Monday that there would be commencement of chronic-care facilities because all the beds could not be handled at the B.C. Medical Centre. I'd like to ask the Minister when he plans chronic-care facility construction to begin, first of all, at the Shaughnessy site and, secondly, at the University of British Columbia.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the Shaughnessy site I hope the construction will begin April, 1975. If we can manage to put it a little bit forward we will.

As far as the geriatrics or chronic care to go on the university site, this is the matter that's really in discussion now and we haven't come to any real hard and fast plans. But there is a real breadth of feeling that we should have a chronic hospital on that site to assist in the teaching process.

FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING NOT
SUBJECT TO RENT STABILIZATION ACT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Housing with regard to housing projects subsidized by federal funds, can the Minister advise the House if rents in these projects are subject to the provisions of Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I believe that an order-in-council was made recently which exempted limited — dividend housing in the private sector which is subject to rent control, public housing and other forms of housing from the provisions of the Act.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister could then take this as notice because we have a situation in Victoria at the Bishop Cridge Centre, a very excellent housing centre for single mothers and other people on low income. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Could perhaps the Minister look into the situation and if there is a misunderstanding, have it corrected?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to do that.

CONTROVERSY OVER APPLICATIONS
FOR PARK ATTENDANT POSITION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): My question is to the Provincial Secretary. On May 16, during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary, I read a letter from a constituent of mine regarding his being replaced by the president of the NDP Association at Toms Lake to look after a park there. The Provincial Secretary said that he would look into this; indeed, so did the Premier. All I wanted was justice done. I wonder if they have checked into this and if the Provincial Secretary would advise me of his findings.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'm advised by the Department of Recreation and Conservation that it was as I pointed out at the time; this was not

[ Page 4246 ]

the Public Service Commission appointment but a temporary appointment using a temporary vote in that department.

I've got the following information for you: your constituent, Mr. Andrich, whose brother-in-law made the complaint, had worked for several summers as a park attendant at Sudetan Park. Mr. Kuenzle, whom your informant says got the job because of his New Democratic Party affiliation, has worked for several summers in the area on development work on parks, for many, many years in fact. Both men are from the same area, both apparently applied for the job of park attendant at Sudetan Park. It was decided locally that this summer Mr. Kuenzle will have the more stable job as park attendant, and Mr. Andrich on development work. This judgment was made on the basis of Mr. Kuenzle having more seniority in parks work than your informant. He's also a considerably older man than your informant, Mr. Andrich. Mr. Andrich turned down the alternative employment, apparently because it involves some travel. However, I'm advised by the parks people that Mr. Andrich has being given another offer of employment on development work at Swan Lake close to his home.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was there any advisement from the department as to why Mr. Kuenzle was provided with a government vehicle to look after the park when no government vehicle had been supplied in previous years to Mr. Andrich?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I just assume we're getting better at the job than you used to be.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. I have further correspondence from Mr. Andrich stating that on "several days," he has in his letter — I'm not going to read them into the record right now — Mr. Kuenzle was not on the job. Would the Provincial Secretary also check into that?

HON. MR. HALL: I don't think so.

RETURN OF SHARE CAPITAL
FROM FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Some time ago I asked the Minister if he would look into the returning of the share capital to those individuals who had them at the time that the government or ICBC took over Fruit Growers Mutual. At that time the Minister said that there would be a refund through ICBC, but that he had set up a committee to see that the people got back their shares or their capital. I had a call yesterday to say that this hasn't been received. Could the Minister advise the House when they will be receiving this returned money?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the House will recollect that in the committee during my estimates the same question was asked and I explained at that time that the returning of the share capital is completely the responsibility of the Fruit Growers Mutual directors. We have an agreement with them to provide certain funds, but the returning of the capital is solely within the jurisdiction of the directors of the Fruit Growers Mutual.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I recall the answer also that the Minister said he was going to have this looked into.

The whole situation is that the capital hasn't been returned. Now these people, who were original shareholders, are being buffeted between ICBC and the Minister who says the Fruit Growers Mutual directors are responsible. Nobody is assuming the responsibility. They don't want to know who is responsible; they want to know when they are going to get their money back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if there is any problem between what was a publicly licensed and private insurance company responsible to the superintendent of insurance, and if there is any complaint against a private insurance company, the proper procedure is to contact the superintendent of insurance, which is not my department.

GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Premier if he has replied to the letter dated June 14, 1974, over the letterhead of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, signed by their demonstration committee, and specifically whether or not he has given them an indication of when this government is prepared to enter into discussions and negotiations with the Indian people on the general question of Indian land claims in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it. as notice, Mr. Speaker.

TASK FORCE TO STUDY
LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education, with regard to a 20-member task force set up by the Vancouver school board to study standards of literacy in the public

[ Page 4247 ]

schools if she is aware that the school board is deeply concerned that many students leave grade 12 unable to read and write in an adequate manner?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I certainly congratulate the school board for their interest in having the survey. My understanding of it is that it was to find out if these statements that have been made are accurate. I think it is an excellent idea to have a board start evaluation.

I would like to say at this time that the Department of Education will be announcing very shortly an overall provincial evaluation procedure which will also give us in the department research and background as to the actual standards of reading in the province.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask if any member of the Minister's department has been either consulted or asked to serve on this particular Vancouver school board task force?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. WALLACE: Is the Minister aware of any other school district which has set up a task force to look into the standards of literacy of students leaving grade 12?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that is the only one I have heard of.

RECENT PURCHASE OF B.C. TEL SHARES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is directed to the Premier as Minister of Finance. As of March 19, 1974, in your latest return to the House, you acknowledged the purchase of 104,000 shares of B.C. Telephone Company. Could you advise the House now if you have purchased any shares since that date in B.C. Tel?

HON. MR. BARRETT: March 19, Mr. Member? There may have been further purchases. I'll take it as notice.

MR. MORRISON: Would you give us the evaluation also when you do?

BONDING OF HEALTH SPAS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services about the recent problem of health spas that have closed down leaving customers without service. Were any of these spas bonded? If so, for how much?

HON P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, at the present time we are working very closely with the bailiffs involved. I believe they were not bonded.

However, I would like to make a small statement on the term "health spas." It has been drawn to our attention and I think it is a very valid distinction that should be made. There is a difference between "figure salons" and "health spas." Some very legitimate health spa firms have objected to being lumped in with the figure salons. The figure salons make promises as to weight loss, inches lost, et cetera, whereas the health spas merely offer services such as swimming pools and saunas. They don't make any promises as to weight reduction or anything of that nature.

We are working very closely in the area. The people involved are working with us. One health spa has offered to honour all the contracts that are outstanding by the figure salons that have been padlocked.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of this continuing problem, however — and I very much appreciate the Minister's answer — is the Minister giving any consideration to bringing in compulsory bonding as an amendment to the Trade Practices Act? There is some voluntary bonding involved in the legislation we have passed, but are you giving any consideration to compulsory bonding?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I believe we would like to work with the Trade Practices Act as it has now been approved by the House in the remedies that it offers as far as bonding goes. If those remedies are not effective, then perhaps at a future time we would ask the House to give us the right of compulsory bonding in those situations.

MRS. JORDAN: I just wondered why, in relation to what the Minister has said, you wouldn't consider compulsory bonding in light of the fact that these are usually chain organizations and they are theoretically well financed. It is not a situation where an individual might start from scratch and work their way up. Why would you not consider compulsory bonding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is getting very argumentative.

POSSIBLE LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES
FOR GASOLINE PRICING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When you are dealing with weight loss it is usually a hypothetical question.

Could I ask the Premier and Minister of Finance whether, in light of the statement by Gulf Oil of Canada that to follow the provincial guidelines as

[ Page 4248 ]

opposed to provincial legislation would jeopardize the payback they get per barrel under the national price equity programme worked out as a result of the federal-provincial conference, he has considered bringing into this House legislation dealing with this matter so that Gulf and other oil companies can follow the guidelines by way of provincial legislation and at the same time not be subjected to any penalty as a result of not following the federal guidelines?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say it is going beyond the rule.

Hon. Members, before proceeding, I wanted to draw the attention of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who was not in the House the other night to a statement so that we won't be faced with this problem day after day. The statement is by the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the House of Commons.

It says that no Member, whether on one side of the House or the other, whether he was a Minister or not, frontbencher or backbencher, should be accused by another Member of dishonesty, of intentionally misleading the House or of lying to the House.

The Member had given his explanation, which the Chair accepted, in this particular case. The citations I am sending over to him and to any other Member who is interested so that this sort of thing does not occur again in the House are citations from the 1973 Hansard of the federal House.

Time after time there have been violations in that House of the rule which is set out in their orders as it is in ours. It causes endless trouble and delay in debate in the House because Members will not appreciate that it is not a point of privilege. I am going to see that this memorandum is circulated to all Members.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders. Something light to start the day off in harmony. Something old and something new, something borrowed and they are all blue. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 159, just to get things going for the day.

The House in committee on Bill 159; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would just observe, Mr. Chairman, that anyone having an interest in this bill should withdraw from the House. We would all have to meet on the lawn. (Laughter.)

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper for section 2, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the-amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 159, Constitution Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 157, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 157; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

[ Page 4249 ]

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 20 as amended.

M R. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

In speaking to the amendment, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that section 20 is the section that deals with the composition of the board and noted that, although we had an increase from 11 to 15 members on the board, there is no representation or no transfer from the senate. Therefore, I propose the amendment, which simply reads: "Delete '15' in the first line of the section 20 and substitute therefore '17' " and further, by adding a subsection (g) as follows:

"Two persons by and from the senate."

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to speak on the amendment and give my reasons for not considering it necessary. For one thing, most of the representations that we had made to us pointed out that they wanted to keep the board small, and 15 seemed to be the desirable number. That's one reason.

The other is that I think you will find in reading through the powers and the duties of the senate and the board of governors that there is quite a bit of flexibility and almost built-in regulations for them to consult together.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of transfer. For instance, a person could be appointed to the board and to the senate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I realize that the powers in some of the other sections ask for consultation. But certainly in the short time that the bill has been on the order paper many people in the university have said that one of the biggest weaknesses of this bill is the lack of integration between the functions of the senate and the board. While traditionally the board has to do with the administration and financial aspects of the university and the senate is the academic overseer, there is such an important overlap between these two that the feeling is that there should certainly be some assurance that the two are integrated.

Two members of the senate on the board of governors would be very valuable, and vice versa; members of the board should be represented on the senate. The director of academic planning at UBC has stressed this point very strongly, and I think the Minister would agree.

It has been stated that service on the senate is very often a very excellent apprenticeship — if I can use that word — for future service on the board, and that there should at all times be this overlap and integration of the two important levels of authority so that one would not be functioning in isolation of the other.

The word "isolation" is too strong a word; but either the board or the senate should do more than just consult with each other on important issues. There should be representation by people on both boards so that whatever the subject matter concerning the other…. Discussing matters, for example, in senate where a board of governors representation is there would perhaps save a lot of time and passing back and forth of memos and briefs and what have you, and in point of fact the person or persons from the board of governors on the senate might be very able in short order to explain, for example, some of the financial aspects of the university which the senate might be less well informed about.

Of course, members on the senate would benefit by this kind of input. Meetings of the board of governors could also receive quite a bit of information from the senate representatives. I wonder if the Minister wouldn't consider this. After all, in discussing this section, I think the Minister has responded very admirably to the request to have two members of the alumni association on the board of governors from the appointed members. I just feel that this would be one more step whereby the integration of these two very important functions, which do indeed have to work in close harmony,

[ Page 4250 ]

would be enhanced.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I certainly appreciate your concern, and you make a valid point. You both have in that respect. All I can say at this time is that there is ability for transfer, and someone could be on both boards. They could be elected to the board and also be placed on senate.

Mr. Member, I am quite willing to watch how this proceeds during the next year. If we find that this is not working out, that there is a lack of liaison, then we would certainly consider what you are suggesting.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment, and I am pleased to hear the Minister's response because I do believe that it is important that there is close liaison between the two. I appreciate her attitude. It is very important.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 32

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House would you please advise the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask for a recording?

On section 20.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I think I must rise to express my reservation about the provision in section 20 for two students to sit on the board of governors.

The reason for my saying this is that I think it's a mistake to distract students from their primary purpose at a university by enticing them into administrative duties of one kind or another.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the last president of the Alma Mater Society at the University of British Columbia to pass his year was Mr. Dave Brousson, the former Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who was president of the AMS in 1949. I think in the last 25 years there's not been a president of the AMS who's passed his year.

We've got cases not just at UBC, but at other universities like Simon Fraser where people who sit on the senate are people who are not taking full courses of study and could not really be considered serious students. I think universities some time ago quite wisely took a rather firm stand with regard to students whose major interest in university was athletics — who were there just to play for the football team. Regulations were set down of a national sort that people who were at universities should be there primarily as students. Therefore it was required that they take a full course of study and that they maintain adequate academic standards. No such comparable suggestion has ever been placed before students that run for office on the students' council or sit as senators. We're getting fairly high up now in the administrative structure of these institutions. And I presume a precedent is not followed for the board of governors either.

I personally think that it's a mistake to have any student running for an office, whether it's his own students' council…. These students' councils, remember, were set up primarily for student affairs so the students could run their own autonomous student body. While I think that's a very healthy thing, I'm not at all satisfied that the enticement of students into these activities has been good for the students themselves. Too many of them have taken an extra year of university simply to become treasurer or president of the AMS, or the editor of The Ubyssey or a student senator.

Indeed, it wasn't too long ago at UBC that it was discovered that the treasurer of the AMS wasn't even a student. He'd been a student the year before and he'd come out there the following year. His parents thought that he was attending university and everyone else thought he was attending university, but he wasn't attending university and he hadn't even bothered to register.

They had a story, I remember, on the front page of The Ubyssey not too long ago about the president of the AMS — this was well on into the session — who hasn't attended a lecture and didn't contemplate attending a lecture for the full year.

I describe these things, Mr. Chairman, not because they're exceptions; they tend to be the rule. What I'm afraid of is that in putting two students on the board of governors we're likely to have just two more students who aren't students at all, but are merely attending the university for the purpose of sitting on the board of governors.

I think there are two cures. First of all, I don't

[ Page 4251 ]

think that students should be encouraged to undertake these activities and be distracted from the things that they should be attending university for. Secondly, if they are concerned about these things as an additional activity to their main activity, which is pursuing whatever their course of studies happens to be, then they shouldn't be involved in these activities unless their academic performance is such as to make it possible for them to spend the time doing that.

I don't know whether that should be a government regulation or a university regulation. But it certainly should be in there somewhere. And if these activities are to be offered to students, such as the board of governors — again may I say I think it's a mistake — then I think it should be clearly understood that the amount of time that they would be required to spend or invited to spend would not be so extreme that someone pursuing a course of study such as engineering, medicine, law or what-have-you would find it impossible to pass his course of study and still be a member of the senate or the board of governors.

Some of the people who are on the board of governors are pretty busy people. They have a lot to do. I think the university, frankly, will be better served if those who are members of the board of governors generally have the time to devote to that activity.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, I can't avoid responding to the Member for Point Grey because I happen to feel that student input at the board level is a very useful idea. I think we're living in an age where in the educational field…and I think a lot of the discussions we've had in this House show that we're trying to widen the overall input into the educational system.

I don't for a moment disagree with the Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he says that the consequence might well be that a student on the board might not pass his examinations in the year of his first attempt to do so. But I think, on the other hand, if we have any real respect for students in our universities, first of all that any student who accepts that kind of office must surely do so in the full knowledge that he's adding a burden to his activities at the university which might unfortunately have that result. But if he or she is a student who can in fact contribute to the functioning of the board and perhaps bring in information and insights and opinions and attitudes of mind and thinking which otherwise the board would not know about, then one has to balance that advantage against the personal disadvantage of the student who probably has to repeat a year.

So I feel that since this is certainly a very optional and voluntary function which the student can turn down if he or she so wishes, I feel that this is a useful step forward, with some of the reservations from the Member for Point Grey there because of that disadvantage to individuals concerned.

I feel that they are likely and almost certain to be aware of the tasks they are taking on and the fact that it might endanger their graduation and the appropriate number of years. Nevertheless, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and I think that the Minister is to be credited for putting this into the Act.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the words from the Member for Oak Bay. This government always believes that those who work and learn in an institution should have an opportunity to participate in the government. Surely they should have their own ideas on whether they're able to fulfil the job or not. Just as faculty member perhaps on the University of British Columbia's staff has to make a decision on whether he or she has the time to take part in politics whether at the provincial or other levels.

Section 20 as amended approved.

On section 21.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MR. SCHROEDER: In section 28(k), where it delineates the powers of the board, section (k) really does not suggest any power at all. The section as it reads now simply says this: "to receive from the president and consider the budgets for operating and capital expenditures for the university."

Now, one of the powers of the board certainly would be to do more with a budget than to give it just consideration. I would like the Minister to consider perhaps strengthening the powers here. This is going to sound strange coming from this side of the

[ Page 4252 ]

House, but I think that here is an area where the board needs to be strengthened in the powers that are given to it.

I would like to suggest that the board's power under section (k) should read: "to receive from the president and analyse and adopt, with or without modifications the budgets for the operating and the capital expenditures for the university." I would like to so move that amendment, and have it here for the table.

I'll repeat it again so the Minister can consider it. It should read: "to receive from the president and analyse and adopt, with or without modifications, the budgets for the operating and capital expenditures for the university." It seems to me that without that extra addition, section (k) really doesn't say anything.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to accept that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

On section 36.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

On section 37.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On section 37(h) it's been brought to my attention that in this particular area the power to provide for and grant degrees, including honourary degrees, diplomas and certificates of proficiency, except in University Faculty Associations, with section 70(o). I wonder if the Minister has looked into this particular problem and whether she would like to report as to whether or not their criticisms are valid and whether there should be some change into either one of these two sections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, I will look into that and see if that is necessary.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have an amendment I'd like to move on section 38. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to move the amendment in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to move the amendment to section 49 appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

Sections 50 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 59 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was looking at section 59, and it appears that there is a very narrow array of penalties which the president can impose. All he can do is suspend a student. Now, it would appear to me that there may be cases where this is inappropriate, yet some disciplinary action is necessary.

There are appeal provisions, but of course in the

[ Page 4253 ]

case of appeal, the case cannot be heard again from the beginning. It's a question of accepting or rejecting the proposal of the president. If he is restricted to suspending a student, despite the fact that he may feel it would be more appropriate to take action of some other nature, I wonder whether it's really such a good section after all.

Surely, in line with the Attorney-General's bills to provide flexibility of penalties — the Attorney-General agrees with me wholeheartedly here and is going to vote in favour of some change here — in view of this thrust of the Attorney-General's arguments, we need to have some variety of penalties to suit the offence. Surely to restrict the president only to suspension, and to have a very limited appeal….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think there….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 59: "The president has the power to suspend a student." Under the old Act there was a broader array of penalties which he could undertake. I have no wish to suggest that a university president should get after students for actions they may take outside of the university, that they should not be in a position of judging the students for things which are not directly related to the university, but simply to allow suspension and nothing else is, I think, far too limited.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, it says: "… to deal summarily with any matter of student discipline."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the amendment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think you missed that amendment. That's the one we're dealing with right now which covers that.

Section 59 as amended approved.

Sections 60 to 64 approved.

On section 65.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 65 as amended approved.

Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved.

On section 69.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

On section 70.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 70 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I raise the same point as I raised before: 70(o) is that the universities council has the power to establish evaluation procedures for departments, faculties, programmes and institutes. Surely there should be some requirement that faculties, departments, et cetera, programmes and institutes, all be properly evaluated, that it not be simply at the wish of the council. Surely there should be a mandatory obligation to do this. I refer the Minister again to my comments on section 37. It appears to me that section 70(a) should either require such evaluation or should, indeed, put that on to the senate as opposed to the council.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm inclined to say most of the universities have these evaluation procedures now and this seems a fairly powerful section to me, where it empowers the university council itself to establish those procedures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But it doesn't require them.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I think the message is fairly strong there. I would not wish to place it in stronger terms at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I take from the Minister, then, that this is powers which the council will use only in rare cases where they feel that a university itself is failing in the job of evaluation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, I really don't think so, Mr. Member. I think the very fact it's stated here that they have the power to do this is more or less giving the message that this could be one of their functions. I would assume that the universities council would carry on and set up evaluation procedures.

MR. SCHROEDER: Section (f) gives the power to this body to receive and to allocate and distribute capital and operating funds and other money

[ Page 4254 ]

allocated by the Governement of the province of Canada for the support of universities. The question that I had is: There are approximately, it varies from year to year, but approximately $15 million worth of grants that are given for special projects. These grants are not necessarily given by the Province of British Columbia or by the Government of Canada but are given by various research councils and so on and so forth.

They are usually given on the basis of the strength of a certain faculty member and abilities that he may have in certain fields of research. Am I to understand that all moneys to be received, even these special grants, are to fall under this section and that these special grants will be allocated and received and distributed by this board as well?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. I think it is primarily referring to the ones given by government. That then follows distribution for the government ones. The other one you are referring to — no. I think all that is stated here is that they can ask information about them.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Referring to section 70(o). In section 71, immediatly following section 70, it says:

"Notwithstanding section 70, the universities council shall not interfere in the exercise of powers conferred on a university, its board, senate, and other constituent bodies by this Act respecting

"(a) the formulation and adoption of academic policies and standards."

I see conflict between the board evaluating and the universities themselves establishing standards. The board obviously, in its evaluation, has got to put in some kind of standard or some recommendations vis à vis standards. It seems in direct conflict with section 71(a).

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, thre is really a basic difference. I don't think it is really a conflict. There is a difference under (o) where it says, "to establish evanluation procedures." The other section says it must not interfere in the exercise of powers regarding the establishment of standards for admission and graduation. To my mind there are two different things involved.

We thought this over very carefully; we had discussions with a number of faculty people on this. My understanding is that this is quite satisfactory. The council established the evaluation of standards to the university.

MR. SCHROEDER: I see a further conflict in 70(o) and would support the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). Subsection (o) gives the board the power to establish evaluation procedures for departments, faculties, programmes and institutes. Yet, in a section which we have already passed, the bill strictly eliminates the appointment of employees or students of the university.

I see that perhaps these employees or these students of the universities might well have great contributions to make on this board if, indeed, this board is to establish and evaluate procedures for the various departments. I see a mild conflict there between those two sections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Of course the council is empowered, as I recall, to set up advisory committees which can be made up of faculty and students.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.

Sections 70 to 74 inclusive approved.

On section 75.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment to section 75 in my name standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 75 as amended approved.

Section 76 to 83 inclusive approved.

On section 84.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment to section 84 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 84 as amended approved.

Sections 85 to 91 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 4255 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 157, Universities Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 155, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 155; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am surprised. It deals with the effective date as June 1, 1974. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact that the cabinent does have a Member who is closely involved with this type of practice of bouncing people from apartments when they fail to buy condominiums, perhaps we should make it retroactive so that we can take in the Bob Williams' condominium and deal with the poor person or family evicted or forced out or required to purchase whatever it was in the case of a celebrated landlord of British Columbia who, indeed, acted very much against the intent and spirit of this particular amendment.

I wonder if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would consider an amendment to take into account that particular case.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I appreciate the Member's compliment to the Hon. Minister who refurbished and upgraded the quality of a building in the City of Vancouver and improved the corner of that area. He provided good homes for good people, all with the consent of everybody who was involved in the operation. I appreciate the compliment the Member has paid to the Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask the Minister, then, Mr. Chairman, whether it will be a satisfactory defence for a landlord, if he refurbishes and upgrades the area and makes improvements, that he will then be exempt from the provisions of this particular amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, provided he doesn't fall within the terms of the amendment.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Attorney-General would clarify one thing for me. In the explanatory notes it says, "The purpose of this bill is to amend the existing Landlord and Tenant Act to prohibit landlords from evicting tenants who refuse to pay more than an 8 per cent increase...." Is 8 per cent the increase that is going to be the effective increase in the  Landlord and Tenant Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. This is the old Landlord and Tenant Act which will expire on its deathbed when the new Act, Bill 105, becomes law. That, of course, provides its own code for preventing unjust evictions of tenants. Threfore, we amend the old Act and extend that up to the same date, namely sometime in the fall when the new Act will be effective.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports Bill 155 complete without amendment.

Bill 155, Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Committee on Bill 158, Mr. Speaker.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committe on Bill 158; Mr. Liden in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the Minister might consider a change of name to the "Mason Gaffney Retirement Fund Act." Perhaps we could comment that "old planners never die; they just go into Bob Williams' Economic Policy Analysis Institute."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with section 1,

[ Page 4256 ]

not the title.

HON. MR. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Point of order. …Member's named by their name instead of being referred to properly as the Minister of Land, Forests and Water Resources or something else. I think we could abide by that fine parliamentary tradition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): …we're getting used to it.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive.

On section 4.

MR. McGEER: On section 4, Mr. Chairman, you were moving there with lightning speed.

I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). I'm not entirely clear, of course, as to why it's a bill of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources when it deals with economic policy. I would have thought maybe it should be the Premier or the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

Here we have a board of directors being appointed, and I don't understand the relationship between the board of directors and the academic staff. Is Mason Gaffney academic staff, or is he board of directors?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's still to be determined, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there's a place for institutes in universities, but there certainly isn't a place for political influence in academic appointments. Knowledge has to stand on its own feet. Certainly I'm a little worried about Dr. Mason Gaffney. He's a maverick economist and his views happen to coincide with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

But all attempts in the past to try and confer academic legitimacy to political viewpoints have ended in failure. If the attempt here by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is to find economists who happen to agree with his views, then to appoint a board of directors who agree with his views to support that man, and then to take money out of general revenue and circumvent the ordinary process of dividing money as you have with the Universities Act that we just passed, to offer as an incentive and sustenance to something which couldn't stand on its own feet otherwise — a political invasion of the academic process — then we've done a disservice both to politics and to academia.

This particular Act, in my view, smacks of all of that. The Minister's answer really revealed that the intent of the Minister — I don't know whether the rest of the government recognizes it and I don't even know if the University of Victoria knows what they are getting into — but it looks as though the intent of the Minister is to do precisely what I have suggested. I would think, at the very least, that those who are appointed to the board of directors of the institute should have pretty narrow terms of authority, because if it is to have any academic standing at all, then the appointment of the academic staff must lie entirely within the board of governors of the university, and the financing and the activities should be subject to the ordinary academic procedures of the university.

If the Minister wants to set up some entirely independent board to serve him in some capacity and to finance it, then it would be possible to have an economic policy institute, or an economic council here in British Columbia. But that shouldn't be grafted onto a university with the expectation that it would enhance either the institute or the university.

I would certainly like to hear from the Minister a strong statement today that the people appointed as a board under section 4 would not be academic staff and that the academic activities would be entirely under the governance of the board of governors and senate of the university.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is just amazing to get one of the staff members of one of the major universities in the province speaking on the floor afraid of diversity, afraid of a mixture of ideas — of the whole percolation of the intellectual process to challenge one another's ideas in our society. That's what this institute might very well do in terms of some of the steps government may or may not take. I don't fear that at all. I would encourage that. We expect independence of thought. We expect high quality in terms of work and output.

You may talk about mavericks all you like, but I would just like to say that the history of the schools of economics in the United States in the early days are tied to the railway trusts of North America. Anybody who doesn't really know the early roots of the so-called pure academic world hasn't been around and hasn't been looking under the stones very long. The good doctor couldn't figure out the sex of a whale a few years ago, so I'm not surprised he hasn't dug in this area either.

We intend to see a quality and a standard established at this institute unequalled in the province and in this part of the world. It's a unique opportunity for government to work with top-notch academics, and vice versa, and for both of us to benefit in the process — and for the civil service itself to benefit from being involved with top-notch

[ Page 4257 ]

academics in a way they've never had the opportunity to have before in this province.

The civil service has been held down under the former administration. Those people with quality, with intellectual ability never allowed to flower, will now have an opportunity to work closely with the University of Victoria and help improve the University of Victoria — strengthen government, strengthen the university, strengthen the quality of the civil service, and at the same time challenge one another's ideas. That's what the intellectual process is supposed to be all about.

I am sure that the good doctor would prefer the kind of monolithic structure that he's been used to working within. That is not what we are after.

The kind of process that will evolve with this institute at the university will evolve between the two of them working together. Now that's the kind of system we want to see in many ways in the province. The man we have now as acting director of this institute has been with the Resources for the Future Organization in Washington, D.C. — one of the outstanding groups of academics in the world — dealing with resource economic questions, having done so for decades, financed by the Ford Foundation and other foundations in the United States and others.

Now we happen to live in one of the resource-rich parts of the world. We should be bringing to bear the best minds in the world in this province. That's the intent under this statute. That's why you birds fear it over there. And yak, yak, yak all you like about Bill 31, in the steps we are taking in the forest industry we're simply working to see that the people get their due rent from the resources of this rich province. We don't want captive schools that don't see the opportunities right under our noses.

We intend to have a flowering group of brilliant academics that can advise government and the civil service and be independent and carry out their own research as well. It's a unique opportunity and one that just couldn't have happened a couple of years ago. It is a chance to make sure that we make the most of this resource-rich province of ours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to state that I allowed the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Minister to discuss the thing in principle. We should really be discussing section 4, which deals with the number of people on the board, the terms of their tenure. That's about it, not the principle of the bill. That's been dealt with before.

MR. McGEER: Quite, Mr. Chairman, and I absolutely agree. What we are dealing with here is the kinds of people that it shall be appropriate to appoint as a board of governors. While it doesn't explicitly say so, when the university council was passed in the former bill, it said that employees of the university were not to be members of the council. It was making a rather, I thought, appropriate division between people who were directing something financially and people who supposedly were academics.

The Minister made a wonderful speech about resources a minute ago. I have to disagree because I think that Bill 31, which he lauded, is running our resource industries into the ground. But I'm not going to digress.

I want to say that there is a departure with this section 4 from what I thought was a fairly well-established routine in the Legislature — established, I might say, by the former government — that governments would stay out of academic affairs. You can imagine the outcry that we would have had, Mr. Chairman, had the former Social Credit government appointed an academic research institute at Simon Fraser University with Major Douglas as the chief economist.

But it is quite conceivable that the former Minister of Public Works, Mr. Chant, or the former Minister of Health, Mr. Martin, might have given a stirring defence of the need for proper economic thought in academia and could have cited the world renown of Major Douglas. He was a world renowned economist — not my style….

AN HON. MEMBER: No he wasn't, you're being facetious.

MR. McGEER: Yes he was. I'm not being facetious, he was a famous man. His theories inspired more than one government here in British Columbia. The people who would have….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you referring to Social Credit?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it.

MR. McGEER: No, what I'm saying is that I think the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) would have made a major outcry had Major Douglas been appointed head of an economic policy analysis institute at one of our universities, and had the former Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Health Services been given a job of appointing a board of directors that might have included Major Douglas. You know — "because we're government, we're the good guys and our economic thinking is right and the people who we think are famous people are famous people."

But when you get right down to it, it's gross meddling of a government in what should be affairs that are completely independent of a government. Universities should be that way and people shouldn't be appointing their political friends to a board of

[ Page 4258 ]

directors. They shouldn't be appointing academics; these should come from other routes. While I certainly agree about freedom of thought and the need for competition of ideas, this is, to my way of thinking, blatant political interference in the life of academia, and I hope it's not going to become a habit of government in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the point made in the section is very clear — that the board will, singularly or as a group, represent labour, consumers, producers, professional and government interests of the province. A fairly wide range of the people of this province.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yet this kind of exclusive, elitist view of the world that we constantly get from Point Grey and Second Victoria — you know, an exclusive view of the world that only an elite are deigned to manage and govern. That's changed, but they don't seem to realize that — that there is a need for these people closer to the ground to be involved in the process of the universities or related institutions. And this is a separate institution, separate from the university itself, so don't muddy it up trying to suggest that this is the university, because it isn't. Any association will be negotiated between the separate board and the university board, which is another separate board.

It's so interesting to watch the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey talk about the purity of these institutions when we know who appointed who, when, where, and why in the past. All too pure for me. I can think of a number of appointments at the universities of this province, the providing of seed money by a few — and this is not just this province, this is the picture in North America — a little bit of seed money to turn the academic ship in the direction the corporate elite may want. A little bit of seed money is all it takes.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure, the CIA in the United States and various other groups…just a little bit of seed money to twist the pattern and movement of most of the research going on in the universities. Incredible.

Now I say the pattern has mainly been established in the United States, but it's there for us to, see. But I can certainly think of examples, and even at the University of British Columbia, where seed money has been provided, where money has provided for a chair. You know, it sounds very nice — we'll establish a chair.

Real estate institutes — the Real Estate Board of Vancouver providing funding to the school of commerce to make sure that the right kind of approach was taken in a sector of the commerce department. Just a little bit of money here, a little bit of money there, and then you get this nice, pure academic response. So let's not have this kind of purists nonsense again. Anybody who cares to look can see what's happened in the past.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to get an example from the Minister of Lands and Forests. You know, while it's true that people do endow chairs at universities, it is done around the world. They don't make the appointments to those chairs, and they don't appoint a board of governors to make sure that the people in those chairs do what they want.

I don't think the people at universities are elitists in any way. The elitists are over there in the cabinet; they're the elitists. People in academia don't have powers. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the one who's going to appoint all the people to this board of directors. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the one who's going to make the money available. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to appoint the director. What we've had is not necessarily going to be different from people who are appointed under section 6 as normal academics.

I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: this is the first major political invasion of academia in British Columbia. It's unhealthy. Believe me, it's unhealthy. It would take a dedicated political idealist, if you can call the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources an idealist in any sense. In the narrow political sense however, he is a man committed to a limited political philosophy. He is trying to exercise that philosophy, not only in the industrial sphere through control of major industries of this province, but he is attempting to move into the academic circles as well. I disapprove of that in both. I think industry should stand on its own feet; academia should stand on its own feet; and politics should stand independently of both.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That would be fine. I think that would be excellent. May I suggest that the Premier bring in a bill to that effect and get his hands out of the union's pockets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're both out of order.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I welcome the Premier's

[ Page 4259 ]

statements, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a very good idea that we bring in legislation funding political parties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get back to the bill, section 4?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll get back to the bill. I think it's a great idea. I welcome that statement, and I trust he'll bring the bill in soon, perhaps not this session but soon anyway.

Mr. Chairman, the words of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources took me back a few years to the days when I was quite a student of the Communist Party of China. There was a campaign about a decade ago which was called "Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend." It was great fun. It was fascinating for us as western observers of a totalitarian system to observe how they encourage the idea of different schools of thought, how they encouraged different points of view. But just as soon as they got in any difficulty, all those flowers had their heads chopped off and the people involved in those contending schools of thought found themselves without any opportunity whatsoever to continue their work, academic or otherwise, and they were sent out for corrective labour.

The Minister may talk all he likes on section 4 in terms of bringing in labour, consumer, producer, professional and government interests, but if the government is the body which appoints these people, there really is no guarantee whatsoever that we will have anything but people from those various groups who represent the government point of view. That's the critical factor here.

If he really believes in this decentralization of control over an academic institute, why in section 4(1) do we have the government itself, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as the body responsible for all those appointments? As the Minister of Education did a short time ago in her bill before the House this afternoon, why does he not appoint from a number of individuals proposed or suggested by, for example, labour unions, unorganized labour, from consumer groups or thing of that nature?

Why is it that the government reserves the right to itself to total control over appointments, and does not even have the restriction of appointing only from a list which is brought forward by the particular special interest groups which he named? This would appear to me to be reasonable, if not indeed they went even further and had the particular groups nominate people to that board of directors.

It's fine to take about elitism, but elitism which is government elitism is really no better than academic elitism or any other type. You're choosing your own people, you're making sure the board of directors is exactly people of your own persuasion or thinking and of your own appointment. You're giving no opportunity here within this legislation, section 4, to have these various groups themselves propose people.

I really think that the argument which the Minister has put forward is fallacious in that we have no guarantee whatsoever that these various groups will be represented by people who are, indeed, representative of them, as opposed to people from such groups which represent a government viewpoint.

That's precisely the point we're trying to make in this area. I think the Minister has either missed it deliberately or unwittingly when he's gone on to say it's to decentralize and get away from elitism, because it's going to be government elitism. I don't think that's better than any other kind.

What I'm waiting for is the second half of the "hundred flowers" campaign when you decide there is too much criticism of government policy. That's where you're going to cut this board of directors up by your right to appoint, where you're going to insist that the institute acts in your interest and yours alone.

I suspect this will come, from what you've said so far, and I think section (4)(1) could well do with either a more straightforward defence of government appointment rather than the red herring of elitism, or indeed amendment to ensure that these groups are guaranteed representation on the board of directors.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 15

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

[ Page 4260 ]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Premier seems very mischievous, Mr. Chairman. He's attempting to divide the first and second Members for Point Grey, something that's never, ever been done before…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since last night. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Well, not often. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister a question about section 6.

It says that the board that he appoints "may appoint an executive director and academic staff." This seems to be in agreement with section 3(l)(2) which say the institute shall operate within the university system in the province.

Mr. Chairman, what happens if Mason Gaffney appoints one of the Minister's friends…?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have any.

MR. McGEER: Sure, he does — Granny. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not on the board.

MR. McGEER: Don't be too sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: She likes building. Granny's a builder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're not dealing with the board in this section.

MR. McGEER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, what happens if the board appointed by the Minister under section 4 appoints a professor under section 6, and the board of governors of the University of Victoria says no? Who's boss — the board of governors of the University of Victoria or the board of directors appointed by the Minister under section 4?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This is a separate, autonomous board and the University of Victoria is a separate, autonomous board. Relationships will have to be negotiated between the two parties.

MR. McGEER: The Minister hasn't answered the question. Section 3 says: "The institute shall, within the university system in the province… provide training, teaching and consulting services." So under section 3 they are part of the University of Victoria; they do operate under the university system.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's confusing.

MR. McGEER: They are located at the University of Victoria.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. McGEER: They are under a board of directors appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. McGEER: This board, Mr. Chairman, isn't appointing people to the economic institute; they're appointing academic staff.

These two bodies operate under legislation that we passed here in the House. You don't pass legislation in the Legislature setting up bodies and then have them negotiate with one another. What kind of legislative action is that?

You've got to set down in black and white what the rules of the game are going to be. If you are trying to pretend that this isn't a political invasion of academia, then, of course, you don't write sections like section 3 and section 6. It says, "academic staff." If it isn't going to be spelled out explicitly under the legislation, the Minister had darn well better give an explicit definition in this House to be placed in Hansard that will be there for people to see and interpret afterwards as to who's boss in this situation, the board of governors of the University of Victoria or the board of this economic institute which the Minister is going to appoint under section 4.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been asked an explicit, definite question which is critical to this particular bill and its interpretation. This is one question that the Minister must answer.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's been answered, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: The Minister refused to give an answer. He said it's going to be negotiation. We don't pass legislation in this House subject to future negotiation by anybody. You have appointed two boards of directors, each with power to appoint academic staff. This is just nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister can do better than this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not today.

MR. McGEER: We'd better have a division, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4261 ]

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 15

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have it recorded.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I get an indication from the Minister of Finance of exactly how much this is going to cost? I've read section 8 fairly carefully and I really can't understand how much of the $5 million that we plugged into the British Columbia Economic Research Fund….

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be budgeted in limitations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, but we don't like to interfere with the universities' budgets. You know that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 8(2) goes into general revenue: consolidated revenue, revenue surplus appropriations account, consolidated revenue fund. Section 8(3) goes completely against what you were saying yesterday about the need to get the best return on investment, because it gives preference to certain types of investments. I wonder whether or not you'd like to comment on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we have that under close observation at all times, Mr. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have no idea then what the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have an idea that the budget will be limited to the interest returned on that $5 million.

However, in that great liberal tradition, we do not intend to order them to submit their budget, because we wouldn't want to upset the Liberals by intervening in the detail of the budget at the university. Now if that's what your suggestion is, I'll go and try to get a reaction from the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia to the Liberal leader's suggestion that the detailed budgets of the universities be subject to close scrutiny by this Legislature. I know that the colleague next to you who is already planning on leaving you will leave that much faster.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance has said some very fascinating things. He said that this is the university. His Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has told us time after time, earlier this afternoon, that this is not going to be part of the university; it's going to be something separate. Now you've got the thing completely back to front because you are in total conflict with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Now if we're going to get the interest for $5 million on this, on what rate of interest are you calculating your cost, or your expectations? Is it 10 per cent; is it 5 per cent? What about the preference to be given to the guarantee obligations of the province and things of that nature? I would just like a ballpark figure on how much this thing is going to cost, and why we are repealing legislation which we passed in 1973.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would just like to say that the Premier made it abundantly clear what the policy is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's true. The policy was abundantly clear as are all the policy statements of the Premier. It's unintelligible to anyone who perhaps is not privy to cabinet secrets. We would like to know, representing the taxpayers of the province, what the ballpark figure is for the expenditure on this particular institute.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't take you into cabinet meetings, and I know how much trouble you're having attending your own caucus meetings, but I want to make it clear that the budget will be established within the framework of the return on the investment of that $5 million. That's fair and clear. I can't tell you what percentage.

I can't tell you what percentage. It may go up or go down. We'll be sharp, and we'll be on the ball and if we can get a better interest rate, we'll get a better interest rate. That's what we're working towards, and

[ Page 4262 ]

I know that's what you're working towards.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm delighted to hear that this is the objective of the government. It would seem from everything the Minister of Finance has said that section 8(2) is totally redundant. It talks about authorizing the Minister of Finance to pay from revenue surplus or consolidated revenue, or partly from the revenue surplus and partly from consolidated revenue, in such proportions as he considers requisite or advisable to fund such amounts in addition to that referred to above in section 8(l), which of course refers to the $5 million fund.

You are telling us now that we will see no funds coming from 8(2) whatsoever, and we're dealing entirely within the interest rates of the $5 million fund of what was formerly the British Columbia Economic Research Fund Act and which is now the Economic Policy Analysis Institute Fund.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, on occasion I am called upon to respond as a social worker, and today is one of those occasions. Now you've just made a Freudian slip. The word you have used is "redundancy." The only motivation for the use of that word can't be related to this section. It's an evaluation of your own role in this House. This section is not redundant. It clarifies in great detail exactly what the intention of this Act is. There's no redundancy. Those lawyers that we pay all that money to would never be redundant. It is really an attack on the civil service when you make these kinds of questions part of your fabric today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is all great fun, but we are trying to get some indication from the government of the actual costs of the institute. If you use an interest rate of 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 7 per cent, you'll get a totally different amount of money than if you use the interest rate of 10, 11 or 12.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice and find out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, there's no need to take it as notice. The Minister who sits behind you, Mr. Minister of Finance, probably has some idea of the cost of this institute. It's fine for you to say it's limited to the $5 million fund and the interest thereon, but the section you are asking us to vote on gives you full power to add to that and you've indicated, according to your policy statement, that this particular subsection is redundant.

Now, is it, or isn't it? What is the ballpark figure? Yesterday we spent a long time asking for some indication of how you were going to spend $500 million. Today it's a little less, but the principle is the same. Can we have some indication of the amount of money that you're going to spend?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am advised that the interest rate is in the range of 8 or 8.5 per cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What's the full amount?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we may not spend the full amount. We haven't been spending the full amount up to now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All you can conclude is that you have no idea what the expenditure is going to be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we're setting up an institute. This is enabling legislation and then they'll have to draw up a budget, but the framework will be within that interest rate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You must have a ballpark figure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The ballpark figure is limited to the return interest rate. I don't know why you are not satisfied.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports that there were two divisions to be recorded.

Leave granted.

Bill 158, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3 1; Mr. Liden in

[ Page 4263 ]

the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We would entertain a motion from the opposition if they wish to pass the bill. (Laughter.)

On section 3 as amended.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Section 3, Mr. Chairman, deals with the royalties being established by that government against the mining industry of this province. It is a very strict and punitive measure being taken by that little Minister over there, and I was rather shocked when the Premier was talking about royalties last Friday in that hysterical demonstration which he gave to the House. He suggested at that time that the royalties being established by the Minister weren't sufficient and he thought that the Minister should charge twice as much.

He said that the Minister in his later years had mellowed to a substantial degree and that in his younger days, when lie was more radical, he would have been substantially harsher against jobs in the mining industry in the province.

I think there is a fair degree of harshness now in the application of the royalties as outlined in section 3. I think they are worthy of closer scrutiny probably than they have been, and the Member for South Peace River has arrived and might have a few words to say.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the Minister said that he was going to scrutinize those figures and tell me if the figures in that report to the shareholders from Consolidated Churchill Copper were wrong or right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I am very pleased to inform you that I didn't have a complete audit taken since last night of the financial statement, but the information that we received in regard to the amount of copper that was involved was 50 per cent wrong. The royalties are about half what your financial statement states. You had $890,593 and we figured it out to $459,000, which would give you a net profit at the end of $262,502.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much a share?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't go on to say how much a share, because that wasn't my job and that wasn't the question I was asked.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The only question that was asked was whether the royalties were correct or not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Minister consider that the investment of $14,500,000 over a period of five years would be too much profit from that mine?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That isn't for me to consider. My consideration is the return to the people of British Columbia of the product they are depleting, which is a one-shot resource. I don't think that any other industry that was supplying goods to that company has taken into consideration whether they could stand the prices they charge for their goods or not. So I'm sure the Hon. Member will recognize this fact. He asked me for these figures and I'm giving them now, and of course the whole question was somewhat estimated. It said at the top that some of this was an estimated financial statement. And this is the nearest I could find out this morning.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister gets hung up on the return to the people of British Columbia. I want to tell you the greatest resource in this province is the people of this province. They are the people who should receive first consideration.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are the human resources, and when you are putting people out of jobs and destroying industry you are not considering the people of British Columbia. Now the mining industry certainly pays much in the way of taxes to the province. If this mine is closed down, Mr. Chairman, which it will be…both of these mines will be closed down, copper will be left in the ground.

I think you must consider that the copper will be left in the ground because in seven years they will be mining copper from the ocean floor, Mr. Chairman. Many of these marginal copper mines in British Columbia will never be developed. Does the Minister not consider that? Can you not see that, Mr. Minister? Would you prefer to have marginal copper mines closed down forever with absolutely no return to the people of British Columbia rather than use a little discretion on this and get hung up on this ideology of yours?

The mining industry returns lots of tax dollars to the Province of British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I just want to make a few comments on this royalty section. This is the section, of course, that has led to all of the problems in the province right now under this particular Act and this particular section.

On the royalties section we have been hearing continually both outside the House and inside the House on debate on this section of what it is going to cost the companies — particularly the companies with

[ Page 4264 ]

the copper mines. This is the section of the Act that led these companies to say: "Let's counter-attack." They said this last March. "Let's counter-attack so they will know who runs this province." We have been hearing from them quite a lot lately. I understand we are going to on Thursday.

No one has talked at all about what the mining companies are going to be able to keep. All they have been talking about is what they are going to pay. At the present price of copper for a rough ballpark figure, but it is fairly close, it looks as though the companies are going to receive today, if this section on royalties is enforced to its fullest extent, slightly over $1 per pound for copper that these marginal mines were producing at a profit a year-and-a-half ago for 40-odd cents. Now they can't seem to operate on copper for $ I per pound even after these royalties are paid. I can't see any logic in statements of this sort. There is some very poor mathematics involved in it.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was in Kamloops speaking on these royalties. We had his comments made up there publicly that he felt the mining companies were entitled to huge profits. We have seen this defence of them in the House today.

But never once has he mentioned the price of copper that the companies will be able to keep, even with every section of this Act put into force as strongly as possible. I would suggest that it is all smokescreen. There will still be plenty of money even for marginal mines to operate on when at the present time they will be able to keep over $1 per pound.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In reply to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), I appreciate his concern for Consolidated Churchill Copper Corporation. I don't think any company that is making $262,502 profit in three months will go out of business with this royalty. When they started up in January they knew full well that we were going to have royalties. They had that knowledge, I don't think for a minute that they will shut down at all. I think they will be very tickled with the showing that this royalty will be.

I am sure that they are very anxious too to see that people receive their just due from the depreciation of this resource.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just have to comment briefly on the remarks of the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) about the return to the mining company for $1 per pound for copper. If you could go and take this copper out of the ground easily, maybe high-grade…which will be done because they will not use the low-grade ore bodies, they will be left there. That is why you should be taxing them on profits, not on the ….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister realizes or not that copper in British Columbia runs in various veins. Some of it is high grade, some is low grade and some is very difficult to get at. When you are being charged on the amount you are taking out of the ground the only stuff you are going to take out of the ground is the stuff that you can do profitably. That means, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this province will be losing a resource because it will be left in the ground. Low-grade ore bodies of copper will be left in the ground. Is that good for the people of British Columbia? Is that a return on their resources? No, Mr. Chairman, it is not.

MR. CHABOT: In discussing royalties, the Minister has used the comparison between royalties assessed in the forest industry and mining. I just received a note from the galleries. A very interesting question has been put. If you are going to apply royalties to mining and forestry what is eventually going to happen? Are you going to apply a royalty to fishing, which is a depletable industry as well, and farming, which is a renewable resource like the forest industry? Is it the intention of the government to apply royalties to these two industries in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Neither of those questions applies to this question here. We are dealing with the non-replenishable resource. That part doesn't come under my department. If it did maybe I would find some way to do it but it doesn't come under my department.

Section 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 16

[ Page 4265 ]

On section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It will just be short remarks, Mr. Premier, but they're important. I'll make them at such length as seems necessary.

Section 4(l ) provides that where royalty is paid under this Act it's credited to certain other Acts. Subsection 2 provides that where royalty is paid under certain other Acts it's credited to this. But then subsection 3 has a defect in the drafting. It reads as follows:

"Any royalty payable under the Coal Act, Mineral Act, or Placer-mining Act that is not paid on the day this Act comes into force shall be deemed to be royalty payable under the provisions of this Act."

The section does not go on, Mr. Chairman, to make clear that once it is paid under the provisions of this Act, Bill 31, it is no longer a charge to that extent under the Acts under which it was previously payable: namely, the Coal Act, Mineral Act and Placer-mining Act.

I would therefore move the following amendment of which I've given the Minister notice, to add the words: "…and such royalties shall be credited to the royalty payable under the Coal Act, Mineral Act or Placer-mining Act."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of that?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I have a copy of that. It would be my belief that that expresses the intention of the bill. I hope the Minister might accept it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: First, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano that he gave me copies of his amendments ahead of time. I appreciated them very much. But if you look at subsection 1 of section 4 you will find that this is amply covered. It says:

"Where a producer pays royalty under this Act in respect of a unit of a designated mineral produced by him, the amount of such payment shall be credited to the amount of royalty payable by him under the Coal Act, Mineral Act or Placer-mining Act. In respect of the production of the same unit of the designated mineral, his liability to pay royalty under those Acts shall be reduced to the extent of the amount of royalty paid under this Act."

MR. GIBSON: That's right, Mr. Minister, but, with respect, I would have said that section 1 applies only to minerals produced after the coming into force of this Act, whereas section 3 applies to minerals produced before the coming into force. Therefore, there is a double jeopardy possibility in subsection 3.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I can't see that there is any double jeopardy in this at all. If there's any royalty payable under the Coal Act, Mineral Act or Placer-mining Act that is not paid the day that this Act comes into force, it shall be deemed to be royalty paid under this Act. That's the royalty that wasn't paid. The other covers the question.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. GIBSON: On section 6 I would suggest a couple of problems. First of all, on line 1 it's proposed that every producer shall file not later than the 15th day of every month estimates of the gross and net value and so on of the production. I would question whether the 15th day is a possible target in terms of the amount of paper work to be completed. I would suggest that it would be….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member proceeds with section 6, I would go back to section 5. There are amendments in the name of the Minister.

On section 5.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 5 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment in my name on the order paper to section 6. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 6.

MR. GIBSON: Is it all right now, Mr. Chairman?

I would suggest that the words "the 15th day" should be replaced with "the last day" at line 1. In section 6, line 4 once again the intention here, if I understand it correctly, is that royalties should be paid on units in respect of which the producer received gross value. But in that same line there are

[ Page 4266 ]

the words "designated mineral produced or in respect of which he received gross value during the preceding month."

So as I read that section, a producer would be liable to pay royalty not only on the units of production on which he received gross value, but also on the units that he produced for which he may not yet have received payment — in other words, royalty payable on the stockpile that he built up.

Therefore, I would move that in section 6, line 1, the words "the 15th day" should be deleted and be replaced with "the last day," and that on line 4 the words "produced or" be deleted.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, if the present setup here proves inadequate to handle the situation, I promise you that we will bring in an amendment at a later date.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GIBSON: I have one more amendment to section 6, Mr. Chairman, which I think is a fairly important one. That is to provide that the administrator must exercise his powers only after having given notice to the party involved. Under subsection 3 and subsection 4 the administrator has the power to unilaterally assess a particular royalty and send out notice that it shall be paid. Then he has very strong enforcement powers later on in this bill.

It seems to me only proper that the producer should have the right of a hearing before such levy be sent out. Therefore, I move that subsection 6 be added reading as follows:

"Prior to taking action under subsection 3 or 4 the administrator shall hold a hearing for the producer to provide such information as the administrator or producer may think relevant."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that amendment. We want monthly reports. What we've got in here is similar to what the private companies do with each other. They like monthly reports and so do we. I don't think you could go to the trouble of holding a hearing every time they sent in a report.

MR. GIBSON: This is with respect to a dispute over the assessment, though, Mr. Minister. It's not with respect to the filing of a report; it's where an assessment has been made by the administrator. The producer would have no way at all of even knowing the information it was based on, let alone of appealing it, unless he had some chance to talk to the administrator.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The assessment will be made on the report the company gives unless, as I said before, it was thought that the company was not giving the correct report. We'll be taking the faith of the company in most cases, except, as I say, if it should happen that the administrator should think that the company has not given him the correct report.

MR. GIBSON: But in those cases there should be a hearing.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): This is another section, Mr. Chairman, in which there is the objectionable procedure of not having an appeal. Even if an individual or a company wanted to appeal a ruling of the administrator they have no appeal, not even to the cabinet let alone the courts.

I think this is a very objectionable feature to have in a bill because human errors can be made. When you have no appeal, this cuts the individual off from his just rights. I think the Minister would agree that certainly if they could appeal to the cabinet when they felt there was an injustice it would be much better. But they should have a day in court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're voting on the amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Although it may not be written in here, I don't think they would have any problem of appealing to the cabinet or myself if they thought they were not fairly treated.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment in my name on the order paper to section 7. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Another brief amendment, Mr. Chairman. There are rather tight filing deadlines here. Therefore, I move that at line 27 of section 7, a new subsection (5) be added, reading as follows:

"The administrator shall extend the time for filing under this section when valid cause is shown."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, it says in the first part that "every producer shall, not later than the 15th day of February in every year, or before such later date as the administrator may approve…"

[ Page 4267 ]

He may approve a later date.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, but that's optional, he doesn't have to if valid cause is shown.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think that we'll find that he'll be very flexible.

Amendment to section 7 as amended negatived.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. GIBSON: This is a provision which would allow a person authorized by the administrator to enter into the promises of any operation and, in effect, close that operation down by seizing the books and taking them away. This, it seems to me, is not a particularly good possibility to have in this Act. The more usual way would be to apply for permission from the courts to seize these books if necessary, In the meantime, if the Minister or the administrator is concerned about the security of the books, they would, of course, have authority, as I understand it under this section, to maintain a guard over them while such a warrant was being achieved.

But it is a very, very, serious power indeed to allow the administrator or his nominee to take away unilaterally with no appeal and no other authority from any court the means of continued operation of a firm that might affect the job of hundreds of men.

Therefore, I would move that line 19, section 9 be amended by adding after the word, "committed," the words, "he may apply to a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order to," and adding at the end of line 21, "and the judge shall make such order upon being satisfied that there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing that an offence under this Act is being committed."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, by the time we would get to the judge and make application of the judge and get a ruling, he may be down in those islands down there in the South Seas some place and we wouldn't have the books at all. This is a common practice in Acts of parliament. It happens all the time in other Acts that this right is given to the department.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RICHTER: Under this section, while the powers are there to seize the books of a company, there is no provision that requires the government to return the books in the event that the royalties due are satisfied. There should be some provision for the government to return the books upon full satisfaction.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That would automatically come. This same section is as in other Acts. I'm sure the people collecting the 5 per cent have many times picked up books but have returned them. I don't think there is any question about that. You wouldn't have to have that written into an Act.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. GIBSON: On a question about section 10, Mr. Chairman, it provides that royalties shall stand as a lien on the assets of the company and for the protection of other creditors. I wonder if there will be any provision made for the registration of such liens.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I imagine that a lien is always registered.

"Royalty payable but not paid in accordance with this Act forms a lien and charge in favour of the Crown in right of the province on all property owned by the producer who is liable to pay the royalty…. "

This is customary in other Acts where you have a lien; we would have first claim. When you place a lien, I'm sure the lien is registered at all times.

MR. GIBSON: Where would it be registered?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I imagine it would be registered with the court.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. GIBSON: On section 13, Mr. Chairman, at line 6, this is a garnishee section. It provides that a person who may be indebted to a producer shall under certain circumstances be required to pay his indebtedness to the Crown in satisfaction of the royalty. But nowhere does the Act make clear that such a garnishee shall satisfy to that extent the royalty owing.

I would therefore move that at the end of line 6, there be added the words, "which shall to that extent discharge the liability of the producer."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd say that too would be an automatic recognized fact. If the royalty is paid, his debt is discharged.

[ Page 4268 ]

Amendment negatived.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. GIBSON: This is a section that I see no way of amending, it just has to be opposed. It is a wholly arbitrary and incorrect power for the administrator and the Minister to possess. Section 14(d) allows the Minister to cancel the free miner's certificate of a producer who has not paid a royalty. This might be a royalty in the amount of a few dollars or few hundreds of dollars or a few thousands of dollars.

The cancellation of a free miner's certificate after an interval of some days causes the lapse and forfeit of every claim to minerals that that person or firm might have anywhere in the Province of British Columbia. That to me is a wholly arbitrary and improper power for the Minister to have. It's straight confiscation.

It's unnecessary because under section 10 we have given the Minister the authority to register a lien on the entire assets of the given producer. Under section 13 we've given the Minister the power to garnishee all of the money being received by that producer. Now we give him the power as well to totally suspend the rights that this producer might have to minerals not just on this one operation but anywhere in the province.

Mr. Chairman, I have to 100 per cent oppose that. I hope the Minister will withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano would allow the Member for Boundary-Similkameen to speak first.

MR. RICHTER: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you were turning to ring the division bell when I was on my feet.

Section 14 is a most objectionable section. Not only does it place a severe penalty on the mining company, but it places a very severe penalty on the wage earners who will lose their jobs and pay envelopes while the company is suspended. This is about the most severe penalty a government could impose. Not only does it cost the mine or the wage earners money, but there is the putting back into operation of the mine once it has been closed down. When it has been closed down there is the de-watering, there is the timbering — the whole operation is put to an additional expense by this sort of feature.

If there is a problem here, certainly with the provisions which have been made previously by way of picking up the companies' books, and the other penalties which are in there, surely if there is a problem, the mine could be permitted to continue operating and have some form of appeal.

We must oppose this section.

Section 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the House, would you tell the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask leave for recording?

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: In line 5 there is a provision that the overpaid amount should be applied in satisfaction of the royalties so payable. That is the next royalty so payable.

There could arise a case where the overpayment amount could, of course, be a good deal less than the royalty so payable. Yet, under this wording, it would still be held to satisfy the entire royalty. The Crown would be doing itself out of a good deal of funds, it would seem to me.

I would move that this line be amended by adding after the words "satisfaction of" the words "or in partial satisfaction of."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't see any reason for that at all because it's all in that section. If there is an overpayment, it will be paid. If he owes others, it could be deleted from the amount he owes. I don't see any reason why any amendment should be there.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4269 ]

On section 19.

MR. GIBSON: Section 19 relates to section 7(3)(b) and notice there filed by the administrator. The- administrator can give such notice as late as March 31 and yet, where there is any dispute, that has to be filed by not later than April 15. That gives only 15 days to prepare all the documentation for such appeal and so on. It seems to me that that is not long enough time.

Further on in section 19 subsection (4) provides that "upon receipt of the notice, the Minister shall duly consider the matter and affirm or amend the notice, and forthwith" — that's after he has duly considered it — "notify the appellant of his decision."

A situation could arise where an overage was assessed in terms of royalty. The Crown has the money; the Minister could sit on it for a long time — for a year or two years — and there would be no requirement that he should give a decision within a particular length of time.

Accordingly, I would move that section 19 be amended at line 2 deleting "the 15th day of April in the year the notice is mailed" and replacing it with "45 days following date of the said notice" and at line 9 adding after the word "notice" the words "within 45 days of receipt."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I will accept the latter part of the 45 days if you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you move the amendment in two parts?

MR. GIBSON: I'm perfectly happy to move it in two parts, Mr. Chairman. I have it so written out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 31, section 19, line 2, deleting "the 15th day of April in the year that the notice was mailed" and replacing it with "45 days following date of the said notice." This is the first part of the amendment.

First amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second amendment, the same section, line 9, adding after the word "notice" the words "within 45 days of receipt."

Second amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

On section 20.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the so-called appeal section of the bill. It's a very, very restricted appeal section indeed. It relates only to section 19 which in turn relates back to 7(3)(b), which relates to not very much of the bill at all. Furthermore, it provides for appeal only on any question of law or excess of jurisdiction. All the other enormous powers contained…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that a camera is not permitted in the Legislative Chamber without the permission of the Speaker. I would ask the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano to continue.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, all of the enormous powers given to the Minister or the administrator under this bill are not subject to any kind of appeal at all. I quote again from a brief of the taxation section of the Canadian Bar Association, referring to section 20:

"The rights of appeal are severely limited. Not only is there a severe limit on the areas of decision which are subject to appeal, but there appears to be a clear attempt to prohibit any appeal to the courts from the Minister's findings of fact. This is a quite unacceptable encroachment upon the normal protection against the arbitrary exercise of government power.

"The producers' liability for royalty should be based upon the statute as enacted by the Legislature and as implemented by regulations covering matters which are not of a nature that ought to be provided for in the statute. The producers' liability will be based on questions of fact and question of law, and there is no reason why the producer should not have access to the courts for an adjudication of any assessment based on interpretations of the facts or the law which the producer considers to be incorrect. "

I'd like to acknowledge the new member of the press gallery and hope that he's reporting precisely the happenings.

This is all the more obvious, Mr. Chairman, when you consider that in the Mining Tax Act there is a provision for exactly that kind of appeal. I don't know if the Premier's nodding means that he's prepared to accept the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Mining Tax Act provides, first of all, for an appeal to the Minister, for a notice of appeal and for a decision on the appeal by the Minister and the commissioner. That's under section 25. Then it goes on under section 26 to say that if the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister, he may appeal there from to a judge of the supreme court or to a judge of the county court

[ Page 4270 ]

within the territorial limits of which the appellant resides or carries on business. And on it goes with ways and means and requirements as to how that appeal shall be heard.

Mr. Chairman, that's in the Mining Tax Act. That's part of the law of British Columbia. That's part of the mining law of British Columbia. The Minister has that section 1n his own charge. He hasn't seen fit to amend it, so I have to assume he agrees with it. Yet here in Bill 31 we have a section which provides for very, very minimal powers of appeal, nothing like the powers in the Mining Tax Act, and far greater discretionary powers. It's at complete odds.

There should be in this Act for the protection of the public of British Columbia and for the jobs in the mining industry of British Columbia an appeal section similar to that in the Mining Tax Act.

Therefore, I move that section 20 be deleted and be replaced with the following: "There shall be an appeal to the Minister from decisions of the administrator and to a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to decisions of the Minister under this Act, substantially as provided in sections 25 and 26 of the Mining Tax Act, with the administrator standing in place of the commissioner."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept this because this would be throwing the mining industry to the wolves — to the lawyers — and it costs them a lot of money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's what I'm trying to do. As far as the Mining Tax Act, is concerned that comes under a different Minister, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). Maybe it's needed there, but I don't see where it's needed in this Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 30

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, leave to record.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, in this section the Minister can collect a royalty whether it is the specific amount that is required or if it's an additional amount. I think it would only be fair, in light of the fact that he can charge royalty on delinquent payments of royalty — he can charge interest on that — in the event of an overpayment in which the Minister is holding the funds that interest equally be paid. I move after the word "excess" at the end of section 21: "together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Minister responds, I would, having looked at the amendment, regretfully have to rule it out of order in that it affects the revenues of the Crown under standing order 67. Therefore, I rule the amendment out of order. Without the consent of the Crown I cannot proceed.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

MR. CHABOT: Section 22 has to do with the staffing requirements to fill the obligations of enforcing the provisions of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 31. It talks about the matter of appointing an administrator of mineral royalties and such other employees as are required.

Last night I asked this question to the Minister: what kind of bureaucracy is he going to establish? Is he going to establish the type of bureaucracy that we see under the Landlord and Tenant Act for all these people with the high salaries, such as the rentalsman and all the other people in the $17,000 to $30,000 range?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm too tight.

MR. CHABOT: When I asked you last night what kind of bureaucracy would be established and what number of staff, I had to ask you a few times before you would answer. You answered me like this. You said the present staff that you have in the revenue division at the present time will handle the whole situation. If that is the situation, then there really is no need for this section to be included in the Act.

[ Page 4271 ]

I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment in view of his statement last night that there wasn't a need for setting up another commission, board or bureaucracy in his department. Why is this sectionin the Act?

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This section is in the Act because this Act was written some time ago before we had all the board set up. It is set up now. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay in the Act because at some future time, when we may not be the government again, the next government may want to set up a commission to look after such deals as this.

MR. CHABOT: You've admitted on your own statement that there is no need for this section in the Act. You suggested that you are putting it there for possible use by another government. No government of the day can commit any future governments as far as situations like that are concerned. In view of the fact that you have indicated very clearly to me that there is no need for additional staff and for an administrator of mineral royalties, I therefore move to delete section 22 of Bill 31.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the Hon. Member doesn't appreciate how careful I am with the public's money. All you have to do is ask my group here. They will vote for me on that respect. I'm always careful about other people's money. I don't think you've got any….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This motion is out of order. The proper case would be that if you wish that section removed you vote against it.

Section 22 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Chairman asked leave that the several divisions in committee be recorded.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on motion 32.

MR. McCLELLAND: I did adjourn the debate on this motion and I certainly rise to express my discontent with the methods that this government is taking to impose closure on this Legislature. I like this place, Mr. Speaker. I like working in it. I like serving the people of British Columbia. But it makes me a little bit sad to watch this government try to tear the guts out of the procedures of this House; and that is exactly what they are attempting to do with this motion.

The Premier of the province stands and talks about full-time MLAs. He talks about salaries for MLAs. He says he's not ashamed to be the highest paid Premier in the country. He says that MLAs should be paid well for their work, and I agree. I agree with that. I think that's absolutely necessary. But paid for what? Certainly not to be a rubber stamp for a dictatorial

[ Page 4272 ]

government. That's what this government wants from the opposition MLAs when they attempt to curtail the debate in the estimates of the Ministers' departments as severely as they are suggesting to do in motion 32.

They want the MLAs to be well-paid and well-fed and silent. They don't want them to be allowed to have their say in this House. Speaking of silence, Mr. Speaker, also in this motion there is talk about the cut-off buttons which rest on your desk and on the desk of the Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would point it out to me?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm sure you don't know where it is, but ask the Chairman. He uses it on many occasions and he knows where it is. At least he knows where his button is.

One of the parts of the recommendation of this committee I agree with. It says: "That cut-off buttons presently installed by the Speaker's chair and on the table of the Chairman of committees be removed." I think that is a good, sensible suggestion. Get rid of the cut-off buttons.

But then it goes on to say that the Hansard operators should be the people to cut off the voice amplification.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I wasn't on the committee. I don't agree to it, all right? Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with that. I don't think that Hansard employees should be turned into censors, and that's what you're asking to happen: that the Hansard employees be asked to serve as censors in this House rather than as impartial reporters of the doings of the Legislature.

We don't have objections, Mr. Speaker, to most of the limitations. The limitations on debate on the throne speech and the budget debate and the bills — they're sensible and perfectly in order as far as we are concerned. But the real nuts-and-bolts issues, the estimates of the Ministers of this House, are being effectively removed from any kind of accountability. That is this government's complete failure, Mr. Speaker: it's refusal in so many things to be held accountable.

I'd like to move a motion that motion 32 be amended by adding the following….

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): A point of order. I don't think the motion that is before the House is amendable.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a committee report.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know yet what the Hon. Member proposes, and I have to know that in order to rule on the question as to what he means by his amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move….

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe I should add this before you start so that there is no misunderstanding. Where there is a report from a committee all you can do is send it back to the committee and make a suggestion as to a change. If that is not what your amendment is doing, then of course it would be out of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, the motion I wanted to prepare certainly wasn't sending the report back to the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Then it would, I think, unfortunately be out of order.

HON. MR. HALL: Next speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right, Mr. Speaker. Well, it seems to me that this House should not allow any consideration of a complete cut-off of debate of the estimates before this House — certainly particularly not on the salary of the Minister. Now if the government wants to limit the debates of the actual estimates of how many chairs and how many waste-baskets that the department has bought, that's fine. But the House has to have the opportunity to debate in full the salary estimates of the Ministers.

The only way we can do that, Mr. Speaker, is to refuse to allow this motion to be passed in this House. If it is passed, then once again, as I said, accountability goes out of the window, and the people of British Columbia will never be able to know again exactly what's happening with the financial aspects of the departments of this Legislature.

It is doubtful whether any jurisdiction in Canada has ever asked its legislators to pass so much legislation, that picks the pockets of the people of British Columbia with such unlimited abandon and provides no checks or balances to the government spending processes — none whatsoever — that opens the vault doors and takes the responsibility of scrutinizing the expenditures of public funds away from the elected legislators. And here we are doing it again with the provisions of this motion: taking the responsibility of scrutinizing these expenditures away from the people who have been elected to do the job and placing the total spending authority now in the hands of the cabinet or even the individual Minister.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the government cannot be trusted with the kind of spending powers that it is

[ Page 4273 ]

taking upon itself. The taxpayers need to be protected from abuses of this kind of power. Instead of protecting them fro m those abuses, this government is asking us today to expand upon those kinds of abuses. This motion, Mr. Speaker, must go down to defeat.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I just want to say a few things about this. I think this is the most serious piece of business that we've had in this session. It is just a form of closure. I can't understand why the government is so frightened of debate in this Legislature. They certainly have a majority that they can have things their own way when the time comes. So why try and restrict debate during the sitting?

I agree with part of the report where the throne speech debate should be cut back and the budget debate cut back. But the point that upsets all the MLAs, I'm sure, that have any concern at all, is the 135 hours in Committee of Supply for the estimates. There is just no way, with the size of government expenditures and expanding as much as they are, that we in the opposition will have an opportunity to find out what really is going on.

This year, Mr. Speaker, the budget before us was tabled at $2.2 billion, and I would predict that it will be at least $3 billion when we are debating next year; and, of course, this is not peanuts.

Why can't we have the unlimited time in Committee of Supply to examine what's going on in every department? It's bad enough as it is to find out what is going on when we have items such as took place in the debate of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This portfolio affects over 50 per cent of the citizens of this province and you know the trouble we had and why we debated so long in this department. Now what we'll have to do is decide which departments have priority and let other ones slide by in about five minutes.

I don't think that's democracy. I would certainly like to see that portion of this committee report deleted or at least the hours doubled from 135 to 270 or 300 hours. I think there's some 18 in the cabinet and I think today or tomorrow we'll have 19, so that means 19 portfolios that we have to look into. In 135 hours it's less than seven hours for each department.

I want to say something about the press. They think that a lot of the discussion that goes on here is just so much garbage, I guess. Why can't we do this and do that and cut down? I just say to them that for the time we've been here, as far as my representation is concerned, people from where I come would like to see me here all the time to watch these socialists and what they're doing. Once this House is prorogued, they go on their own and there are no checks or balances at all, and there certainly are while the House is in session. So to the press I say if they don't like the heat in the kitchen, well, get out of the kitchen if the sessions are too long. That has been written by some of the press and that's my comment on that.

But I go back to my remarks at the start that this government has a huge majority and I can't understand what they're frightened about. Ever since they've been government they have overreacted and now we have this result.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I imagine this session's going to be adjourned one of these days or weeks and we'll probably be back here about January 15. According to motion 32, I'm sure we'll be out of here March 15. I can't see in any way that's justifying the confidence the electors put in all the MLAs by doing this huge amount of public business in so short a time.

In future if the proposed curbs on debate are adopted in full, the opposition will face a Hobson's choice on occasions of that kind. It can either pull back, as I mentioned earlier, its attack and let the government sit smug on its gilded silence, or it can press on, knowing in doing so it will be giving up precious time that could be used to deal with some other cabinet Minister and some other department.

If the government were as sincere, open and honest as it promised to be, then the proposed limit of 135 hours of debate in Committee of Supply would be ample. But neither the government nor the time limit is adequate in this regard. For the time being the new restraints could work to the government's advantage. When the NDP move back to opposition — I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that's where they're going when the next election is called — this system can work against them and I don't think they've given that any thought at all.

The only consistent losers, Mr. Speaker, under both these circumstances are going to be the general public, the bosses of all of us. It's most unfortunate. I definitely am opposed to motion 32 and will be voting against it.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put my remarks briefly on record in support of this motion to adopt the report, because these reforms that are contained within this report are reasonable — even generous. They are the result of the comparison of this Legislature and the way that it functions with the other Legislatures and parliaments of Canada and of the United Kingdom. We now are coming into, you might say, the same level of progress that they have already attained in the United Kingdom, in Ottawa, in Quebec and other jurisdictions of Canada. The amount of time budgeted notably for the estimates is reasonable and generous. Manitoba, for example, has only 90 hours; yet it seems to manage on 90 hours. We compare with Quebec with a budget three times the size of B.C.

[ Page 4274 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. There appears to be a point of order. What is your point of order?

MR, CHABOT: Not only appears to be — there is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know until I hear it.

MR. CHABOT: I know, but for you to suggest it might not be a genuine point of order….

MR. SPEAKER: No imputations at all.

MR. CHABOT: I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the Deputy Speaker, who holds a position of neutrality when he's in the chair, is now debating what the procedures in the House be. I'm wondering at the propriety of the Member who's supposed to be unbiased when he sits in the chair now suggesting that there should be limitations on debates which will seriously affect the opposition. I think he's jeopardizing his position of neutrality.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please indicate the rule on which he bases this point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm asking you for guidance. You're the Speaker of this House, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it, in our House and over the years — it has been so in most Houses — the Chairmen of committees, including the Committee of the Whole House, are entitled to take part in debate, although the Speakers have made a self-denying ordinance in effect by convention not to take part in debates on estimates or on other matters. They don't even give me a chair. I can sit down on the floor. Therefore, as far as I know, I can't find an authority in our House to deny the Hon. Member for Skeena a voice in these proceedings.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now debating matters in the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member has a precedent upon which I should base a decision properly, I'd be glad to proceed to study it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's on a very general proposition. Just as you rightly point out that in matters affecting the House you withdraw, surely when we're discussing whether or not it's correct and proper for 135 hours more or less to be assigned to committees of the House, the Chairman of committees withdraws. It's a convention which I would have thought was pretty well understood that the people who must accept the decision of the House one way or another, regardless of their personal feelings, should withdraw from debate so they don't prejudice their future effectiveness as Chairman of committee or as Speaker of the House by making statements in committee or in the House or outside the House even….

MR. SPEAKER: I find the Hon. Member's argument quite novel because he is now indicating that somehow the motion before the House is in some sense prejudicial to the role of the Member for Skeena to state his position in regard to the rules of the House. He is not in any way affected one way or the other by the motion that is before the House, so far as it relates to the question that he is discussing, which is the amount of time to be spent on the estimates and time limits. He is not in any way involved. In fact, he is removed from the conflict in his duties as Chairman and therefore whether it takes this amount of time or that amount of time is in no sense a burden upon him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the principle lying behind your own withdrawal from discussion in this Legislature, even on matters which are riot directly relevant to the Chair. The principle behind this is that you must preserve a position of total impartiality in your position as Speaker. Similarly, the Chairman of committees must preserve and have the same type of impartiality and must protect the confidence that all Members of the House, regardless of what side they're on, should enjoy in him. I believe, with respect — and this is in no way a criticism of the Member involved — that the system we have developed of the Speaker and deputy Speaker and Chairman of committees of the House being servants and officers of the House has created a situation in which they should not be supporting government motions which directly affect their position in this House as a servant of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I have just pointed out to the Hon. Member that the argument that has been heard from the Hon. Member for Skeena has no relationship in any sense to whether or not it affects him as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House when he discusses estimates, because if he is removed from that as Chairman it matters not to him whether the House decides to debate something for 135 hours or for 20 hours. He is not involved as Chairman. Therefore if he debates the question, he is not

[ Page 4275 ]

affected by it professionally.

On the other hand, it would be for the House to judge the value of his remarks, if he were talking about a cut-off button. There again he would be in effect asking the House to make some ruling on the cut-off button in which he would be debating the subject.

It would be entirely up to the Member for Skeena as to whether he chose to have his remarks in that context judged by the House. I cannot see what he is talking about under any authorities that we have in our House to in any way affect his right of freedom of speech in this Assembly.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minster of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, following the Hon. Member for Victoria's (Mr. D.A. Anderson's) reasoning, inasmuch as others besides the appointed Deputy Speaker often sit as Chairman of committee and not unusually Members of the opposition sit as Chairman and in one or two cases I have seen a leader of an opposition party sit as Speaker, it would preclude just about everybody from taking part in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that you are entitled under our rules to freedom of speech in this assembly. The Speaker, so far as estimates are concerned, by tradition since 1880, which was the last instance when it occurred, has not taken part in estimates. That denial — or self-denial — has not been adopted by Chairmen in this House in any experience we have in the precedents of this House. For an Hon. Member to seek to deny the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) the right to speak in this debate, particularly when it cannot be said that he is affected by whatever resolution this House adopts insofar as his remarks are concerned, as they have so far progressed, would be unfair to the Hon. Member.

I must rule that since there is no authority upon which I can judge otherwise his remarks are perfectly in order.

MR. CHABOT: It's not a question of attempting to deny the Member for Skeena the opportunity to express his opinion. I just want to make sure that it preserves his neutrality as Chairman of the Whole and Deputy Speaker of this assembly. I feel he prejudiced his neutrality to some degree in the committee when he presented….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is said in committee is not known to the House unless a minute of that evidence is presented to the House from that committee by a motion of the House. Therefore the Member would be quite incorrect in the rules of order to be referring to something in committee.

MR. CHABOT: No, no. I'm suggesting that he presented motions that were detrimental to the opposition in the House. Clearly, he jeopardized his….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is out of order in referring to something outside of the House.

MR. CHABOT: Okay, I'll mention the Member's position inside the House — one which is supposedly that of neutrality. Now he is in the process of trying to debate not closure or censorship but the restrictions of free debate on the part of opposition Members. Historically the opposition occupies the time of estimates; I've made this point on numerous occasions. Now we find that the Deputy Speaker of the House is attempting to speak and denying the opposition what has historically been their right to occupy the majority of the time in the estimates. I think it is a sad….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) that it is no secret what the role played by the Member for Skeena is in committee and in the House. Members are entitled to judge the remarks of any Member of this House in relation to his duties either in the House or in his representation. But to deny the Hon. Member free speech…

MR. CHABOT: Nobody is trying to deny him.

MR. SPEAKER:…I think would be quite improper. Would the Hon. Member for Skeena proceed with his remarks?

MR. DENT: I'm sorry that I started a hassle. All I wanted to say was that the reforms that are contained within the report from the committee are reasonable and even generous.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, since it is obvious from this motion that there is anything but consensus on this side of the House and that there are serious reservations as to the intent of this motion, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. May I read it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. MORRISON: That motion 32 be amended by striking out the words "be adopted" in line 2, and substituting the words "be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills for further consideration."

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that the amendment of

[ Page 4276 ]

the Hon. Member is in order. Will the Hon. Member proceed on the debate on the amendment?

On the amendment.

MR. MORRISON: While it is true that the committee did, in fact, meet and had some casual conversations, many of the suggestions….

HON. MR. HALL: Point of order. I think that is an insulting reference to the committee. It met on more than five occasions. While it was poorly attended by one of your own Members, Mr. Member, it deliberated and was fully covered by the press. To suggest that it was acting rashly I think is doing a disservice to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I should perhaps draw the attention of the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) to the point in our rules that what has occurred in the committee is really not of the knowledge of this House. Consequently, what you related would not be in order. I would say that any inference against the committee is, of course, entitled to comment. The first comment is out of order. Consequently it should have been brought to order by the Speaker. What has happened is not known to the House unless the Committee, by resolution, reports the evidence of that committee to the House. Consequently it should not be debated in the House.

You can address yourself really to your amendment which is that instead of the report being adopted it should be referred back to the select standing committee and give your reasons for suggesting that. But it shouldn't include what happened in the committee heretofore.

HON. MR. HALL: I should also point out, Mr. Speaker, that that particular Member was a member of the committee but decided not to serve on it while he took off for a holiday.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Let's get on to the debate on the amendment.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing those remarks to my attention. I wasn't aware of that previously and I apologize for any inference that I might have made. I may also, if I may, digress for one second to say that I was not on a holiday. There are many other Members of this House who have been absent during this particularly long session for reasons best known to themselves. I consider it an insult that Members should refer to that absence.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MORRISON: We have had conversations both in the meetings and in the halls. I will not refer to them again.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask that Member to withdraw? I detect an inference there which is most insulting. I do not accept it and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear the particular remark. What are the words — "That will be a change?"

MR. MORRISON: It was a very insulting remark. The tone was very insulting. I refuse to accept it. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) intended any insult, would he clear it up with the House?

HON. MR. HALL: I was remarking on the fact that the Member said he would not repeat conversations in offices and corridors again. I said, "That will be a change."

MR. MORRISON: Would you care to cite a case?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I cite the case of a meeting in the Oak Room when you told untruths outside the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Provincial Secretary please restrain his language and perhaps withdraw that remark?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Now, could we please get on with the amendment without any rancour?

MR. MORRISON: This interchange is the reason why it is obvious that this bill should be referred to committee. It is obvious that it should be referred back. There is a great deal of discussion that needs to take place. I move that it be referred back.

MR. SMITH: Referring to the amendment to refer this report back to the committee for further consideration, I would say that whenever a parliament decides to deal with the changes of rules

[ Page 4277 ]

which will affect the rights of the individual Members of this House, some of them may feel that those rights are being improved upon.

Others certainly feel that those rights are being impinged upon by the suggestions included in this report once they become part of our standing orders. We have every right to consider long and hard the rule change we will accept while doing the business of this House.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) kindly confine his remarks to when he is on his feet, not when he is sitting on his estimates?

What I want to say is this, Mr. Speaker: the type of suggestions contained in this report, supposedly for reform of the rules of this House, may prove to be anything but reform. After talking to people from other jurisdictions in Canada, we find that, for instance; the Province of Quebec does have certain limitations on debate; but there is also a completely different process involved in their particular Legislature when they deal with matters of estimates.

The estimates go before a committee of the House; they are amply debated in that committee before they come back into the House itself. There is provision within the rules and standing orders of the House to extend debate if that is required. There is leniency given to the people who wish to put legitimate arguments forward. In many jurisdictions….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: If you want to bark, go outside. Join the rest of the animals out there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go eat your dog meal?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member for North Peace River that the debate on this should be somewhat restricted? You may end up repeating debate that has already occurred on the main motion. What we are concerned with here is why the motion be referred back to the committee.

MR. SMITH: Okay, I accept your recommendation. This is the first time I have had an opportunity, incidentally, to participate in this debate.

The reason I feel so strongly that it should be referred back to the committee is that I do believe the committee met for only five meetings. We had not had the opportunity, other than through reports tabled by the Clerks of this House, to really review what is happening in other jurisdictions. Believe me, after talking to the MLAs from the Province of Quebec, the Members of their assembly, and looking at the report that was tabled, there is a great deal of flexibility, for instance, in their system, compared with what we have before us in the way of this report. Now this must be handled through their standing rules and orders, but they do have much greater flexibility than you would be led to believe when you read what is in the actual printed form of their standing rules and orders.

I feel that if this report is adopted, particularly the debate in estimates and the ability of the opposition to act effectively will be seriously hampered in this House. For that reason I suggest that that one area alone — the amount of time given to the discussion of estimates — certainly should be reviewed by the Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few brief words. I think it is a good motion that the committee go back and re-examine the report it is attempting to introduce in this House by motion 32. Why I say that is because since the report has been presented in the House there has been new information made available to Members who were part of that committee which was not available at the time.

The committee was hastily put together and the meetings were hastily conducted as well. Not sufficient time was given to the close examination of the changes which were proposed in the motions put before the committee. I think that some of the Members, probably because of other obligations, couldn't always attend the meetings. There were several of the Members who were missing. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) missed two meetings. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) missed two meetings.

Unfortunately, we find that new evidence has come before this assembly now that this motion is being debated as to the type of escape valves that exist in other parliaments, where estimates are referred off to a committee. I think, in order that proper scrutiny is given to the expenditure of tax dollars, that the committee should go back and re-examine this very critical thing so that closure does not take place in this House. I think it is a very serious matter.

We also find now that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who supported the report in the committee stage finds himself re-examining his position very seriously, and making what I might call a bit of a flip-flop about his position on the report which was submitted by the committee. He supported it right down the line in the committee. Now when he spoke on it the other night, he thought that the restrictions shouldn't apply to estimates. That's the very point that I attempted to make in the

[ Page 4278 ]

committee. It was the very point that I think more time should be given for examination of this very critical business of discussing the estimates — the tax dollars of the people of British Columbia.

I think that it is one motion and one amendment that is worthy of support by all the Members. If the committee comes back after having re-examined the question and finds that these same kinds of rules are the general rule in other parliaments, I'll be the first to say that maybe I made a mistake, that maybe they should apply here.

But I suggest to you that the rules, the type of limited debate you are trying to impose on this assembly, the type of censorship, the type of closure you are trying to impose on this assembly, does not exist in other parliaments. I think it is most important that the committee be reassembled to re-examine the matter of estimates, primarily.

The other limitations are not that critical, but the estimates are, I think, one area in which the committee should have an opportunity to again meet, review, re-examine and come up with a more reasonable and more rational type of solution to debate in this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney-General says, "Turn up." I don't know what the reference was there, but the Attorney-General missed two of the meetings, Mr. Speaker. He failed to be there at two of those meetings. Very amazing. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), who is not here right now, missed two meetings as well. And the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) might have a few words to say; he missed two meetings as well.

I'm not going to say that the Second Member for West Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the House really knows about this.

MR. CHABOT: No, maybe we shouldn't tell the House.

MR. CHABOT: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) made a few references to my attendance at the meetings, and my attendance was as good as many of the Members on the committee. I missed two meetings as well. (Laughter.) So I put myself down as having missed a couple of meetings.

I think it's a very important motion and it's worthy of support.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion is one that we will be supporting for the following reason: pretty well all the debate that the government has put forward in support of this particular motion 32 is based on the fact that it is similar to legislation elsewhere, that it's similar to rules elsewhere. Yet the debate has demonstrated that that actually is not the case.

The government is clearly unaware of the fact that in most other Legislatures — certainly in the ones they have referred to most frequently — there is the opportunity for full estimate debate in committees of the House other than Committee of the Whole. This is a fairly critical aspect which I think has clearly escaped the Ministers who spoke in this debate and the backbenchers as well. Certainly other Legislatures have time limitation on Committee of the Whole, but other Legislatures do not have limitations on the debate in the committees which are set up specially to examine the estimates of particular Ministers.

It is obviously clear that they have misunderstood what happens elsewhere. The committee no doubt worked diligently. It was well attended. No doubt the people there did their best. But the purpose of having a committee report in the House is for the other 50-odd Members, or 45-odd Members, who are not on the committee to point out where the committee went wrong.

The committee went wrong in this area: it did not consider the committees that other Legislatures have to examine estimates other than the Committee of the Whole.

At this point is going to take a fairly lengthy elaboration, I move that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Audit Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 163 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. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 4279 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 4249 et seq.:

157 Mr. Schroeder to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 157) intituled Universities Act, to amend as follows:

Section 20: By deleting "fifteen" in the first line and substituting therefore "seventeen" and further by adding subsection G as follows: Two persons by and from the Senate.

157 The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 157) intituled Universities Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) By deleting the definition of "Alma Mater Society".

(b) By deleting the definition of "Faculty Association".

(c) In the definition of "faculty member", by deleting the words "Member of a faculty" in the first line and substituting the word "person".

(d) By inserting, after the definition of "student", the following definition:

"'Student Association' means all full-time students who are members of the alma mater society or the graduate student society of a university;".

Section 4 (1 ) (b), line 1: By deleting the word "The".

Section 20 (d): By deleting clause (d) and substituting the following:

"(d) Eight persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, two of whom shall be appointed from among persons nominated by the Alumni Association:".

Section 20 (e), line 1: By deleting the words "Alma Mater Society:" and substituting the words "Student Association:".

Section 21 (1), lines 1 and 2: By adding, after the word "than" the words "the chancellor, president, or"; and by deleting the words "Alma Mater Society," and substitution, the words "Student Association,".

Section 21: By adding the following as subsection (3):

"(3) The chancellor and president shall be members of the board for so long as the chancellor and president hold their respective offices."

Section 24 (b), line 1: By inserting, after the word "Council", the word "or".

Section 35 (2) (g), line 4: By deleting all the words after the word "elected" and substituting the words "by all the faculty members in such manner as they, in joint meeting, determine;".

Section 35 (2) (h), line 2: By deleting the words "Alma Mater Society" and substituting the words "Student Association".

Section 35 (2):

(a) By deleting the word "and" at the end of clause (j).

(b) By adding, after clause (j), the following as clause (k)

"(k) one member to be elected by the governing body of each affiliated college of the university; and".

(c) By relettering the present clause (k) as clause (1).

Section 36 (2), lines 1 and 2: By deleting the words "section 35 (i)" and substituting the words "section 35 (h)".

Section 36 (4): By deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) Where a vacancy arises on the senate, the vacancy shall be filled,

(a) in the case of an appointed member, by the body possessing the power of appointment; or

(b) in the case of an elected member, in the manner prescribed by the senate."

Section 38, line 2: By deleting the words "section 37 (h) and (o)" and substituting the words "section 37 (i), (o), and (r)".

Section 45 (2), line 2: By deleting the words "Alma Mater Society." and substituting the words "Student Association."

[ Page 4280 ]

Section 49 (1), line 2: By deleting the word "with" and substituting the word "without".

Section 59 (1), line 1: By adding, at the end, the words "and to deal summarily with any matter of student discipline."

Section 59 (3): By deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

"(3) The action of the president is final, and subject in all cases to an appeal to the senate."

Section 65 (5), line 3: By adding, at the end, the words ", and he shall devote his full time and best effort to the performance of his duties as chairman."

Section 69: By renumbering section 69 as subsection (1) and adding the following as subsection (2):

"(2) In an action against the Universities Council, if it appears that the Universities Council acted under the authority of this Act or any other Act, the court shall dismiss the action against the Universities Council."

Section 70 (j), line 2: By inserting, after the word "whatever", the words "reports and other".

Section 70 (k), line 4: By deleting all the words after the words "business affairs of the university".

Section 75, lines 1, 2, and 3: By deleting the words "executive director, or" and substituting the words "Universities Council, or any"; and by deleting the word "him", "he", and "he" where they appear in the first, second, and third lines, and substituting in each case the word "it".

Section 84: By deleting section 84 and substituting the following:

"Limitation of liability.

"84. (1) No action or proceedings shall be brought against a member of a board, senate, or faculties, or against an officer or employee of a university, in respect of an act or omission of a member of a board, senate, or faculties, or officer or employee, of the university done or omitted in good faith in the course of the execution of his duties on behalf of the university.

"(2) In an action against a university, if it appears that the university acted under the authority of this Act or any other Act, the court shall dismiss the action against the university."

The following amendments are referred to on page 4263 et seq.:

31 The Hon. L. T. Nimsick to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 31 ) intituled Mineral Royalties Act, to amend as follows:

Section 3: By deleting all the words in section 3, and substituting the following words:

"Royalty.

"3. (1) Every producer shall pay, in accordance with this Act and the regulations, royalty on the quantity of a designated mineral produced by him in the Province.

"(2) Every sale, disposition, or use of a unit of a designated mineral by a producer shall, unless the Lieutenant-Governor in Council otherwise orders, be deemed to include the royalty portion of the unit.

"(3) Subject to an order under subsection (2), the amount of royalty payable by a producer shall be determined by multiplying the number of units of a designated mineral sold, disposed of, or used by him during the year of the determination by the rate of royalty determined under subsection (4) or (5), or both, and by multiplying that product by the weighted average net value to the producer of the units.

[ Page 4281 ]

"(4) Subject to subsections (5), (6), and (9), the rate of royalty shall be

(a) two and one-half per cent of the units of a designated mineral sold, disposed of, or used by a producer during the year 1974; and

(b) five per cent of the units of a designated mineral sold, disposed of, or used by a producer in every year after the year 1974.

"(5) Where the weighted average gross value of the units of a designated mineral in respect of which royalty is determined tinder subsection (3) exceeds, by twenty per cent or more, the basic value of the units of the designated mineral, the producer of the designated mineral shall pay royalty, in addition to the rate of royalty under subsection (4), at a rate established by dividing one-half of the difference between the weighted average gross value of the units and one and two tenths of the basic value of the units by the weighted average net value of the units.

"(6) Where the basic value of the units of a designated mineral in respect of which royalty is determined under subsection (3)

(a) exceeds by more than ten per cent, but less than twenty per cent, the weighted average gross value of the units, the rate of royalty under subsection (4) is reduced by one-half of one per cent; or

(b) exceeds by twenty or more per cent the weighted average gross value of the units, the rate of royalty under subsection (4) is reduced by one per cent.

"(7) Where more than one producer is liable to pay royalty in respect of the production of the same units of a designated mineral, the producers are jointly and severally liable to pay royalty under this Act in respect of such production.

"(8) Where a producer is affiliated to a person from whom he receives a gross value, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, where he is of the opinion that the gross value so received is not a bona fide gross value, specify the gross value that the producer is deemed to receive.

"(9) Where a producer is liable for the payment of and pays, the costs of or incidental to smelting or otherwise refining, other than by milling, the designated mineral in respect of which royalty is payable under this Act, and the smelting or refining is carried out in the Province in a manner approved by the minister,' the rate of royalty under subsection (4) is reduced by one per cent."

Section 5: By deleting all the words in section 5, and substituting the following words:

"Filing agreements.

"'5. (1) Every producer who is producing a designated mineral in the Province shall, not more than forty-five days after the date an agreement is executed by him or after the date the mineral is designated, whichever occurs last, file with the administrator a certified copy of every subsisting agreement in respect of producing, selling, milling, smelting, transporting, or marketing the designated mineral.

"(2) Where a producer fails or neglects to comply with subsection (1), he is subject, mutatis mutandis, to the provisions of section 14."

Section 6, line 3: By adding, after the word "the", the words "gross and".

Section 6, line 7: By deleting all the words after the number 3.

Section 6, line 20: By adding, after the word "in", the words "gross or".

Section 7, lines I to 9: By deleting all the words in lines 1 to 9, and substituting the following words:

"7. (1) Every producer shall, not later than the fifteenth day of February in every year, or before such later date as the administrator may approve, file with the administrator, in such form as the minister may prescribe, a detailed calculation of

(a) the weighted average gross and net values of all units of a designated mineral sold, disposed of, or used by the producer during the preceding year; and

[ Page 4282 ]

(b) the royalty payable in accordance with section 3.

"(2) Where the calculation under subsection (1) shows that the royalty payable exceeds the royalty estimated and paid for the year of calculation under section 6, the calculation under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by payment of the royalty still payable according to the calculation."

Section 24, line 22: By adding, before the word "net", the words "gross and".

Section 24, line 23: By deleting the word "and", and substituting the following words:

"(i) approving persons and commodity exchange institutions for the purposes of this Act; and"

Section 24, line 24: By relettering paragraph "(i)" as paragraph (j).

The following motion is referred to on page 4271:

32 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move—

That Report No. 4 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your Committee has considered the several matters referred to it under Motion 29 passed on May 6, 1974, and recommends an amendment to Standing Orders as follows:

By inserting after Standing Order 45 the following as Standing Order 45A:

With reference to Item 4 in the said Motion, your Committee recommends that Mr. Speaker be authorized by the House to arrange for amplification and control of the Chamber sound system and that cut-off buttons presently installed by the Speaker's chair and at the table of the Chairman of Committees be removed.

Your Committee further recommends that the Hansard operators in the Chamber be instructed by Mr. Speaker to cut off all voice amplification other than that of the Speaker or Chairman when the Speaker or Chairman rises. When the Speaker or Chairman has risen, no words spoken by other than the Speaker or Chairman shall be recorded or transcribed by Hansard.

With reference to Item 5 in the said Motion, your Committee recommends that the present practice relating to Public Bills in the Hands of Private Members and Motions be continued, and that some suitable advisory mechanism be considered to assist members requiring advice on the drafting of Bills and Motions.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Roy CUMMINGS, Chairman