[ Page 5043 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Reduction of B.C. sales tax on building materials. Mr. Phillips — 5043

Coroner's report on death of Mrs. Mary Jones. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5044

Clarification of union and BCR management negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 5044

Jericho School facilities report. Mr. McClelland — 5044

Boycott on U.S.S.R. turbines. Mr. Gardom — 5045

Forestry takeover investigated. Hon. Mr. Hall — 5045

Auxiliary power for ferry terminal. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5045

Lease arrangements for Crown land. Mr. Fraser — 5045

Duncan courthouse roof repairs. Mr. Chabot — 5045

Request by insurance agents for meeting with Minister. Mrs. Jordan — 5046

Teacher/trustee settlements to date. Mr. Schroeder — 5046

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 5046

Mr. Speaker — 5046

Mr. Phillips — 5047

Mr. Speaker — 5047

Hon. Mr. King — 5049

Mr. Speaker — 5049

Mr. Schroeder — 5049

Mr. Speaker — 5049

Mr. Phillips — 5049

Hon. Mr. King — 5050

Mr. Chabot — 5051

Mr. Speaker — 5051

Mr. Phillips — 5051

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Committee stage.

On the amendment to section 20 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5051

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5051

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5052

On section 20 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5052

Hon. R.A. Williams — 5052

Mr. Phillips — 5052

Mr. Gibson — 5054

Amendment to section 20 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 5054

Division on amendment to section 20 as amended — 5054

Division on section 20 as amended — 5054

On section 21.

Mr. Chabot — 5055

Amendment to the title.

Mr. Wallace — 5055

Report stage — 5055

Division on third reading — 5056

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Speaker — 5056

Mr. Phillips — 5056

Mr. Speaker — 5056

Mr. Phillips — 5057

Hon. Mr. King — 5057

Division on motion to revert to orders of the day — 5059

Statute Law Amendment Act (Bill 178). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5059

On section 10 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5059

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5061

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5063

Mr. Gardom — 5063

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5064

Mr. Gardom — 5064

Mr. Morrison — 5056

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 5066

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5066

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 5066

Mr. Gardom — 5067

On section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 5067

Amendment to section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 5069

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5069

Mr. Gardom — 5069

Division on amendment to section 12 — 5069

On section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 5070

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5070

Amendment to section 15.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 5070

On section 18.

Mr. Curtis — 5070

Report and third reading — 5071

Night sitting

Royal assent to bills — 5071

Appendix — 5072

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like the gallery to bid a very nice welcome to Mr. Gus Beurling, formerly of Nahmint Bay — a great friend of fishermen in the Province of British Columbia.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the House would want to join with me in recording our great sorrow at the death yesterday of U Thant, former Secretary-General to the United Nations, who as we all know served greatly in the cause of world peace. I'm sure we would like it on the record that the whole House regrets his untimely passing.

Mr. Speaker: I will see that it is so recorded.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave, under standing order 35, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of....

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Hon. Member? The time that we have appointed is before entering upon orders of the day, after question period.

Mr. Phillips: Is this a change from...?

Mr. Speaker: No. That's the way we have been doing it. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) will appreciate that fact, as recently as the other day.

Mr. Phillips: I was just referring to Hansard October 17, 1973, where I introduced a matter of urgent public importance directly after introduction of bills. However, I'll certainly abide by your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: We've established that "before entering upon orders of the day" is the way it says in standing orders, and we therefore have been following after introduction of bills, question period, then after that, all motions of urgency.

Mr. Phillips: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We'll certainly bear it in mind when that time comes.

Oral questions.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Phillips: Are we into the question period?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. You and he had both risen, I thought, on the question period. I was recognizing him next, but I can go back again, I suppose.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker: I try to follow a format of going down the line, as it were, from each party for questions.

REDUCTION OF B.C. SALES TAX
ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Phillips: Well, a question, Mr. Speaker, to the acting Minister of Finance. I'd like to ask the Minister....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Is the Minister of Agriculture the acting Minister of Finance? Thank you, Madam House Leader.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact and promises made by the Minister of Finance, the Premier, that if Ottawa took the tax off building materials, he would take the sales tax off of building materials in British Columbia, and in view of the fact that the federal government has reduced the tax from 11 and 12 per cent to 5 per cent, is the Province of British Columbia going to respond and reduce the sales tax on building materials in the province from 5 per cent to 2 per cent, which would be an equal percentage?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is out of order. It is asking for a statement of government policy for the future.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker: yesterday....

Mr. Phillips: If I may interrupt for a moment....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, not again. (Laughter.) It's the third time.

Mr. Phillips: That question was based on previous statements made by the Minister of Finance — made right here in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, now you are asking him to give a statement of future policy of the government on the matter that has not yet been announced by the government....

[ Page 5044 ]

An Hon. Member: Yes, it has.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. With respect, there's been no announcement, that I know of, that the government is going to do something on which you are questioning...in regard to your question at all. The usual rule is that you are not to ask questions about matters of future policy.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly want to abide by it; I don't want to disrupt the House. But the statements were made by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature, so it's already stated policy. All I'm asking him is when they're going to act on it. When is he going to act on it?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: it isn't a statement that was made by the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He said that if they removed the 11 per cent, we would consider it. They have not done that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria, I think, has tried three times now.

CORONER'S REPORT ON
DEATH OF MRS. MARY JONES

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker: yesterday the Provincial Secretary told the House that immediately following question period he would ask the Attorney-General's department if they would have objections to tabling the coroner's report on the death of Mrs. Mary Jones and the reasons for the department's dropping of the manslaughter charges against one John Sanucci. May I ask him now whether he's in a position to table the report and provide information as to why the manslaughter charges were not proceeded with?

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Thank you, Mr. Member. I intend to publish, or table, depending on what happens today, both the pathologist's report and the coroner's report, as soon as we get it. We have not yet received it, although we have had information about it.

As far as the charges are concerned, in view of what has happened yesterday, and the judge's deliberations today, I'm not at liberty to comment any further as the matter is sub judice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Not the previous decisions, though.

CLARIFICATION OF UNION AND
BCR MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: I wonder if he could clarify a reply which he gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, who inquired about the situation on the B.C. Railroad and the stoppage of service. The Minister replied in Hansard:

I want him to know that the parties are meeting and negotiations are under way.

My question arises from a discussion which my office has had with the B.C. Railroad public relations office today, where a Mr. Armstrong stated that there has been no negotiations between the union and BCR management since the certification vote last Thursday.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, that's quite correct. I did make that statement on the basis of information I had received from the Mediation Services Branch of the Department of Labour. I did discover this morning that there had not, in fact, been a meeting take place yesterday, so I'm sorry for that wrong impression I gave. It was based on a report from the mediation services.

Mr. Wallace: Just quite supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Minister's reply very much. Can he bring us up to date on when there will be negotiations, because of the serious complications arising from this present work stoppage?

Hon. Mr. King: I've been informed, Mr. Speaker, that the railway management has contacted the union and indicated their willingness to-resume negotiations, but at the present time there are no plans to actually come together for further meetings.

JERICHO SCHOOL FACILITIES REPORT

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): A question to the Minister of Education. About three months ago the Minister received a report from Mr. Ben Chud regarding the Jericho School facilities. In that report Mr. Chud recommended that a 13-member board be set up within three months. I think that that was the term he used. That's two months ago, and I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to act upon this recommendation and, if so, when. I understand the parents still feel that there's an urgent situation at Jericho School.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Yes, the department officials are now preparing a recommendation, in consultation with me, with reference to the report

[ Page 5045 ]

which will be presented to cabinet. I realize that the parents are concerned about the time element, but I'm waiting to ascertain whether legislation would be required to initiate the board, if the government so desires. We are keeping in contact with the parents to inform them of these problems which arise. You can't often immediately restructure something without legislation. We're keeping in touch with the department, and the cabinet will be given a full recommendation very shortly.

Mr. McClelland: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the staff situation at Jericho, I understand that there are some parents who are teaching on staff at Jericho who don't have any real educational qualifications. Is there a problem still in getting staff to fill positions at the school, and are there parents there who have had to fill in because of deficiency of qualified staff?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I'm not aware whether there are or not, Mr. Member. We have made available the funds for the hiring of additional staff.

BOYCOTT ON USSR TURBINES

Mr. Gardom: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Seeing as how it's the policy, Mr. Minister, of your government to take South African wines off the shelf by virtue of the discriminatory practices of that country, is the Hon. Minister prepared to give his assurance that B.C. Hydro will not be putting U.S.S.R. turbines into dams in this province in view of the fact of the Soviets' continuous persecution of the Jewish people? They're continuing to imprison political dissidents without fair trial and are still prohibiting free elections. And none of the goods in question are going to be union-produced.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): A pretty good question, Mr. Speaker. It should be taken with notice.

FORESTRY TAKEOVER INVESTIGATED

Hon. Mr. Hall: The other day, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) which I took as notice on behalf of the Attorney-General and his staff regarding the takeover bid that was well published in yesterday's newspapers. I want to advise the House and the Member that the information contained in the articles in the morning Province, and more particularly on page 27 of the November 25 issue of The Vancouver Sun, has been brought to the attention of the superintendent of brokers. We had a number of meetings yesterday about this matter, and his office is looking into the circumstances of the takeover bid to ensure that the laws of this province were adhered to.

AUXILIARY POWER FOR
FERRY TERMINAL

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Ms. Curtis) about an auxiliary power service at the ferry terminals to eliminate any future hold-up because of a power failure. Well, our very efficient, first-rate ferry service was ready away ahead of all of us and has an auxiliary service installed, which was actually used last Sunday evening for the first time.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): On that point, my thanks to the Minister for answering the question, Could he explain to the House whether this is one terminal, two, or most terminals? The problem is quite widespread in the event of a major power outage. The Minister mentioned privately yesterday that it was at Tsawwassen, but at what other terminals does this apply?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: It will go into all terminals. I'm not sure which one. I think it's in all now, as a matter of fact — the four main terminals.

LEASE ARRANGEMENTS
FOR CROWN LAND

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): This question is for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. He announced a new policy on disposal of provincial Crown land in rural and semi-rural areas of the province. Will this disposal be by leasing only, or will there also be an option to purchase?

Hon. R.A. Williams: That's a matter that's currently under review, Mr. Speaker. There's no firm decision in that regard.

DUNCAN COURTHOUSE ROOF REPAIRS

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Public Works. Regarding the Duncan courthouse roof repairs, is the work to be undertaken by the department substantially similar to the specifications provided in the original tenders called?

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): The answer is no.

Mr. Chabot: A supplementary question, Under the circumstances, in view of the different

[ Page 5046 ]

specifications, what objections does the Minister have in calling tenders under the new specifications?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: We called tenders and we prepared first an estimate in house, which was $17,000. We called tenders, and in calling tenders we notified the trade. We were assured that there would be considerable interest. When we opened tenders, there was one tender being offered by the same firm that installed the roof some four or five years previously. The tender was almost three times what our estimate was. Our estimate was $17,000; the tender was $47,000.

Unless there are two or more tenders, or unless the one tender would be competitive with what we anticipated, or with what our estimate would be, then we don't accept that tender. We feel that this is by far in the best interests of getting the greatest value for the taxpayers' dollar. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy and I were on the roof of the Duncan courthouse (laughter) the morning after we looked at the tenders. The roof was repaired for less than $2,000.

REQUEST BY INSURANCE AGENTS
FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Would the Minister confirm that his office and he himself received a letter delivered by hand on November 20, 1974, from the insurance agents of British Columbia requesting a meeting?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, I think I did.

Mrs. Jordan: Has the Minister answered this letter yet?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No.

Mrs. Jordan: Supplementary. Does the Minister intend to answer this letter and this request by these agents to meet with them to discuss their current problems in light of the excess loads that ICBC is putting on them over and above the initial contract?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I usually answer all my mail, sooner or later.

Mrs. Jordan: When? When they're out of business?

TEACHER/TRUSTEE SETTLEMENTS TO DATE

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): This question is for the Minister of Education. Can the Minister advise the House how many settlements have taken place in the teacher/trustee...?

Interjection.

Mr. Schroeder: Oh, I'll start all over again. This question is for the Minister of Education. Can the Minister please advise the House how many settlements have taken place in the teacher/school board salary dispute since the coming into effect retroactively of Bill 173 on November 13?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I haven't had a report from the conciliators yet. But what I have had to date is very promising and certainly vindicates the legislation we brought in, which shows that a number of boards and trustees have gotten together. Specifically, your answer: two more, I believe, have settled at this time outside of the group that had not allied themselves with the provincial group. I understand — and this is just a general understanding — that there are a number of others that are actually talking to each other, which I think should make us very pleased.

Mr. Schroeder: Supplementary. That means that two out of 68 have settled.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35 I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Speaker: Would you hand the matter up to me, please?

Mr. Phillips: Do I not have an opportunity to read into the record...?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I mentioned previously that there have been a number of statements to the effect that the matter should be handed up to the Speaker at the time you ask for the....

Mr. Phillips: I'll hand it up to you and read it at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: You haven't got two copies?

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly I have. I say I'll hand it up and read it at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Right, thank you very much.

Mr. Phillips: Great cooperation, certainly.

Mr. Speaker: I know we get along very well. (Laughter.)

[ Page 5047 ]

Mr. Phillips: Request for immediate action by the government in the strike on the British Columbia Railway. A request for immediate action by this government on this matter has reached my office, and the offices of other Members of....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Is this a press release?

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): No, he's reading from a statement.

Mr. Phillips: How facetious can you be? (Laughter.) How facetious can that Minister be? I'm reading from a statement that I prepared....

Mr. Speaker: I've had the opportunity to read the statement as far as I could. In the meantime I would point out to the Hon. Member that the rule clearly says that you state the matter and you do not include in it, according to all the authorities, an argument with regard to the matter or all the evidence that you would otherwise offer in a debate on the motion.

Therefore, all you do is state the particular matter that you consider to be an emergency that requires debate at this time.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, in all due fairness to you, do you not consider a wire from a municipality in my constituency that says:

70 PER CENT OF WORK FORCE OUT OF WORK IN CHETWYND DUE TO B.C. RAIL STRIKE. GOVERNMENT INDECISION AND FAILURE TO SETTLE MATTER IS COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS, HAS CRIPPLED THE ECONOMY OF CHETWYND.

Do you not consider that matter certainly well within the jurisdiction of...?

Mr. Speaker: What I was saying to the Hon. Member is: that constitutes an argument on the case rather than a statement of the matter. What I'm suggesting is that what the Hon. Member is trying to do....

Mr. Phillips: Oh, Mr. Speaker, please, please, come on now — be fair.

Mr. Speaker: What the Hon. Member is trying to do is to argue the case before the House before he states the matter. The matter, simply, as I see it from your statement, is that there is a strike on the railway which you say is so serious that the House should adjourn its ordinary business to discuss it at this time.

Mr. Phillips: That's what I'm saying — yes.

Mr. Speaker: But I don't suppose that you would want to go into all the arguments of why it's important in terms of how many people are out of work, other than the fact that it's a serious matter and that you have stated 70 per cent of the work force are out of work in Chetwynd.

Mr. Phillips: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Now, anything else in regard to the statement of the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Phillips: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The lumber industry in this province, which is the No. I industry, has its livelihood threatened by this strike. Rising unemployment in this province is going to be increased by this strike.

This railway is the lifeline of the interior of the province. The government, through the services of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was able to avert a threatened strike in the ferry system, and I'd like to know why there is no action by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who is a director of the British Columbia Railway — why negotiations are not going on.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It's a specific matter; it's certainly urgent and well within the administrative jurisdiction of this government to solve the matter. Unlike previous matters of urgent public importance raised in this House, there is a specific telegram, which I've referred to, outlining the effects of this strike on just one community.

I think, in all fairness to the economy of this province, this government and you should allow at least the House to vote on whether they consider it a matter of urgent public importance or not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are two aspects of it that have to be considered by the Speaker before he can put the matter to the House for debate.

The first question is: is there a competent administrative method already provided in law for the dealing with disputes? We've had this matter settled several times on the matter of strikes. It's always been held, as I recall, that the matter, if it is within the competence and the administrative jurisdiction of some department, or some board or commission, then it's not generally for the government to interfere with the normal working of the statute that deals with that subject.

Now, there have been several work-stoppage cases that we've had where that very point has been decided.

The other aspect that has to concern the Speaker

[ Page 5048 ]

is whether this is the first opportunity in which the matter could have been raised, because if it's a continuing thing that's going to go on for some time — has been going on for a number of days — then this is not the first opportunity, therefore there is not the urgency of debate.

Now, those are the two factors it appears to me that I have to consider.

Mr. Phillips: Yes. In all due respect to your unbiased ruling, I would suggest to you that it could have been brought up yesterday. However, there was a statement made by the Minister of Labour whereby he told this Legislature that there were negotiations going on. So after we learn today that there are no negotiations — less than 10 minutes later — I don't know how I could possibly bring it up any sooner, after what the Minister said, that there were no negotiations going on. Now....

An Hon. Member: He apologized.

Mr. Phillips: Last year, on October 17, in a similar situation, you ruled that I could not raise this matter in the House because we were going to have a debate on the labour bill.

Mr. Speaker: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: And it was during that labour bill that I was under tremendous odds in the House, able to relate the railway strike to the labour bill, if you will recall.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, 15 minutes after you made your motion you were debating it in the regular debate.

Mr. Phillips: Yes. No, it was about an hour and a half later — it wasn't until 5 o'clock that the strike went on.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry. I was not aware of the specific time.

Mr. Phillips: Now this is a specific matter. Mr. Speaker, you must realize that this might also be the last time I would have, the opportunity to bring this matter to the Legislature, because in all probability we will be adjourning or proroguing tonight — at least, I'm sure you hope so.

This is the last opportunity, and in all fairness to the people who are hurt by this strike, the lumber industry, grain — it's impossible to move grain — as I said, this railway is the lifeline of this province. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect, I think if you were going to be completely unbiased and....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You are suggesting that I'm not...?

Mr. Phillips: No, no, no, no! Oh, no. Now, you know better than that.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then don't even put it as a possible proposition (laughter) because if I think that you're suggesting that I should make my decision on the basis of whether you think I'm biased or not, then the whole business of having a referee just disappears — you might as well forget the rules of the House.

Mr. Phillips: No, no, perish the thought. But I'm saying, sir, to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is unemployment in this province: the lumber industry is hurting; grain farmers are hurting; the world is starving and we can't move because this is the lifeblood.

Now the government, through their administrative powers was able to carry on negotiations in the ferry system, which affects the lower mainland, the seacoast, Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, et cetera. That's important, and I certainly don't take away from that, Mr. Speaker, but this affects the entire economy of the whole province.

Through the graces of the Provincial Secretary, that ferry system was kept operating while negotiations carried on, and it is well within the administrative jurisdiction of this government to see that those railway workers go back to work and that negotiation can carry on during that period of time. That's why I think we should have a debate and allow the Minister....

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. May I ask...the Hon. Member is suggesting that although it is within the normal administrative competence and duty of some board or other, that is under the Labour Relations Act?

Mr. Phillips: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: ...that there is no law that deals with this at the present time and therefore the House is free to debate it?

An Hon. Member: There is no law that can resolve it.

Mr. Phillips: There's no law that can resolve it. All of the normal course of laws have run their course, and the Minister has already said....

If we were allowed to debate this very, very vital and important issue, maybe the Minister could advise us, or maybe we could suggest to him during the term of debate that he send over some people from

[ Page 5049 ]

Victoria — the Labour Relations Board — and see if we can get these people back to work.

Now, it seems to me that I'm doing all the debating; I'd like other Members, and on the government side of the House....

An Hon. Member: The Labour Relations Board can't do it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope you're helping me, but I'm not too sure.

Mr. Phillips: That could be brought out during the debate.

Mr. Speaker: What I want to know is this, and maybe the Hon. Minister of Labour can give me the information I need: whether there is at the present time any competent authority with the power and the duty under statute, at the proper time, and in accordance with the rules of collective bargaining, to deal with the subject — that is, the legal point. Is there an administrative body that has the duty charged by this House that they would perform in their normal course?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for South Peace River is rather confused as to the procedures.

There is no law which compels people to work in this province. The union has exhausted the procedures which exist under current legislation in order to exercise their right to strike, and certainly this government is not a party to any law which would force workers to abandon that strike right and force them to continue working.

We have a branch of the Department of Labour, namely the Mediation Services, which is normally available to the parties to assist them in their negotiations. Mediation offices are standing by, willing and ready to assist the parties, but it is basically the responsibilities of the two parties in negotiations to resolve their own dispute.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that this situation is a valid matter of emergency at this point in time. I have not received one telegram at the moment. If the Member for South Peace River feels obliged to respond to the telegram he's received, why, perhaps he'd like to offer his services as the mediator to the parties. But that's strictly up to him.

I've received no indication from industries or from any individuals, indeed, in the north, which would indicate and support the idea that an emergency exists in the north at this time.

Mr. Speaker: If you look, Hon. Members, at May in the 16th edition — I happen to have it handy — pages 372-373. There two aspects of it which I have to consider. One of them is that if must not be a matter that involves the ordinary administration of the law.

Now, the Hon. Minister of Labour has indicated the method that is used in law, by statute, to deal with the matter, and that would, in effect, by interfering if anything came out of this proposed debate in terms of what you want to do. If what you want to do is proposed to this House that there be some legislation, then the proper course would not be to debate it in this method but to put a bill before the House.

Therefore, the second point is that it must not be a matter involving legislation. So you are prevented by the rule in May, at page 373, halfway down the page, where it says: "It must not involve legislation." Therefore, the proper method is to apply to change the law if you don't like the present law.

As far as the matter of administration of the statute is concerned, if your point was that the statute is not being administered, then that might be an arguing point as to why there should be a debate. But debate of this kind does not lead anywhere, except draw attention to a matter.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): A point of order. According to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, then there is no such thing as a matter of urgent importance. If there is a statute to care for the problem, then it cannot be brought in as a matter of urgent importance. And you have just ruled that if it is a matter of changing some law in order to make some suggestion or to provide some vehicle for the care of it possible, then also it is ruled out. So you have just ruled that there is no such thing as a matter of urgent importance.

Mr. Speaker: No, I must differ with the Hon. Member, that I have said many times, and drawing on the authorities that have stated it many times, the matter may be urgent, and certainly I quite agree with the Member that it is an urgent matter; it is always an urgent matter when there is a cessation of work which affects the public.

That is not what I have to deal with, and I tried to point this out many times. I have to decide on the urgency of debate. Is there another way it can be done than by interrupting the normal business of the House and putting this ahead of everything else the House has laid out for itself to do? Before I determine that, I have to know whether there is another method which can be used, such as legislation, or alternatively, whether there is already an administrative body charged with the duty, by this House, to carry out its duties.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to the words from the Minister of Labour? And in all

[ Page 5050 ]

humbleness from me, I feel you have predetermined the results of this debate, however, there is a way, and it could come out in the debate.

There has been no mediation officer requested by the government. The reason the railway is out on strike in the first place is because he didn't do his job as Minister of Labour and the government and the railway have not bargained in good faith. Had they bargained in good faith like they did on the ferry strike.... I'm certainly not asking him to bring in any law to force these people back to work. All I am asking is for a debate on this very urgent matter so that we can discuss it in a normal, intelligent way, search out ways, bring out and point out to the government the problems with the economy of this province, how important this is to all segments of the economy of the province. Maybe in debate on this urgent, very urgent matter, very specific matter...maybe through debate on the matter we can come up with some solution.

I'm certainly not advocating that the right to strike of these people be taken away. Not at all. I'm not proposing legislation to force them back to work like that Minister brought into this Legislature, either.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A point of order.

An Hon. Member: Is the Member in order?

Mr. Speaker: No, he's not, actually. But I want to hear every point of view on this. I welcome any statements on points of order because it helps me in this matter. Now, the Hon. Minister of Labour on that point.

Hon. Mr. King: On a point of order, the Member suggested that proper collective bargaining had not taken place, that a mediation officer had not been involved in the dispute. I noticed he was consulting with his colleague, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), and I hope he didn't receive the advice from those quarters, because if they knew the law in the province pertaining to collective bargaining, there is no trade union that is allowed to take strike action until mediation has been exhausted. And a mediation officer, indeed, was involved in that dispute for 10 days.

Mr. Schroeder: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes?

Mr. Schroeder: The question is: is the Minister in order?

Mr. Speaker: Well, the question is: he is giving information to the Speaker, as both sides have been doing — both the Member for South Peace River and the Minister of Labour — have been clearing up a matter that is part of the thing I have to determine, and that is whether there is urgency of debate, and whether it affects the normal administration of the law set out in the statutes.

I've heard from both sides on the matter, and I cannot be convinced from what has been said that the normal administration of the law should be interfered with at the present time in that things have been happening that should be happening in that field.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, if I may finalize my comments, there was improper information given to the House and I think that is a valid point of order.

Mr. Schroeder: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Schroeder: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I also have, it seems to me, a lot of difficulty getting your attention. I have reference in this directory to a fine distributor of a hearing aid.

Mr. Speaker: Now, I'm sure a personal remark is not called for in the House. I'm trying to hear the information that I'm being supplied with in order to make the proper decision, and I've been getting that information from both the Minister of Labour and from the Member for South Peace River.

On the point of order, nobody has shown me yet that we should interfere with the normal administration of the statute, which is the one that binds this dispute. Now if you could show me why we should interfere with the normal administration of the statute, I'd be delighted to consider it. In view of that, I would like to postpone the decision on this matter until 3:30 or whatever time I am permitted back in the chair by what order of events are taking place, to tell you what I have decided in view of the things I have heard from the Members who have spoken.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I was on a point of order, and I would like to conclude my remarks.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, may the Hon. Minister precede you, then we'll hear from the Member for Columbia River?

Hon. Mr. King: Simply it's not to debate this situation, but to clarify the comments that I understood the Member for South Peace River to make — that no mediation had been involved in the dispute, and that improper collective bargaining had taken place. Now, that is in violation of the law, those suggestions, and they are quite improper and quite untrue.

[ Page 5051 ]

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, you suggested that you are seeking information that would justify the ability of this chamber to discuss this matter of urgency. I think the Minister of Labour has made the point quite clearly that there is a need for this debate at this time.

The Minister said that collective bargaining has gone through its proper course, that mediation officers have been involved in this dispute, and that now there is an impasse between management and labour, that the strike is on and there is nothing further which the legislation that he, or his department administers, can do to resolve this dispute.

Therefore I think that brings the matter around to the question of whether there is urgency of debate. Certainly, in view of those statements made by the Minister — that the strike is here and now, and that there is nothing further can be done by his department — there is an urgent need for the debate to take place to attempt to resolve the impasse that is affecting the economy of the entire Province of British Columbia. I think it is of extreme importance. I don't think it is a matter that should be delayed until 3:30, It is a matter that could easily be put to the Members in the House under standing order 35.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I thank the Hon. Member for his contribution. I think I've heard ample representation. Normally I don't suppose Speakers do this, but I think it is a good practice to find out what all the aspects are. I'd like to put the matter over until a convenient time after 3:30.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, may I add one more statement which might help in your deliberations? — the fact that if we don't have a debate on this this afternoon and find a way of solving this strike and treating the workers on the British Columbia Railway fairly, why, I can see in the future that we might be back here in a couple of weeks debating the same thing in this House, with legislation which would force the railway back from strike. I think you can avoid that by allowing debate on this very important matter this afternoon. I'll just leave that with you for consideration while you are in your office consulting May.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 171.

TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 171; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On the amendment to section 20.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To refresh your memory as to what the amendment is about, Mr. Chairman, when we closed last night I was inquiring of the Minister why in this section 20 we have the word "shall". The section reads:

"Upon the requisition of the minister, the Minister of Finance shall pay such moneys as may be required to the administration of, or for any of the purposes, of this Act."

It is an obligatory requirement of the Minister of Finance to pay whatever amount of money is requested from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who, presumably, is the designated Minister in this instance.

The amendment would be to switch the word "may" for the word "shall" so that in a bill, which is otherwise totally unfettered in the way of checks and balances, in a bill which grants these very, very broad powers over so many aspects of the forest industry in British Columbia, that at least we have a final check of some sort, anyway, in that the Minister of Finance can question expenditures and moneys which are requested by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Last night the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) no doubt correctly indicated that he and the Minister of Finance are the best of friends. We hope that one day, perhaps, either this Minister or some other Minister may well be in a position where they act a little more independently of the Minister of Finance. Or perhaps I should rephrase that, Mr. Chairman: we hope the day will come when the Minister of Finance acts a little more independently of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Therefore, we think that this particular section should be altered so that at least the power is left to the Finance department to say, "No, halt, you've gone too far, Spend no more," rather than leave it totally unfettered in the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

Therefore, I move the amendment to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in the first line of section 21.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) should at long last express this concern because he has been willing to live with other statutes with similar wording. I would draw the Hon. Member's attention to the Administration of Justice Act which

[ Page 5052 ]

passed this House. I would remind him of the Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act, which was brought in by a former government with the same kind of wording. The Unified Family Court Act, or the Transit Services Act, or the Debtor Assistance Act, or the Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act, or the Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act, or the Trade Practices Act, brought in by the Minister for Consumer Services.

In all these instances, generally the opposition has accepted this standard drafting clause. It's strange that their memory is so short.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Minister is now intervening in this debate, unlike last night when he sat so silent. Perhaps he failed to realize the distinction between this Act and so many others. Many of the Acts he mentioned, passed by the previous administration, we questioned and have commented upon and have voted against. He knows that.

Many of the Acts that he has referred to are different in this sense: the Act has some limitation. The Act itself may limit the expenditure or scope or powers. But in this Act — and this is the reason I gave for the amendment — we find virtually unlimited powers. It's because of this that we offer a parting shot in the second to last section of this particular bill: the very minor suggestion that "may" shall be substituted for the word "shall".

Had this Act been written in full of nice, good, proper curbs, and checks and balances, and limitations on powers and the possibility of abuse, had there been possibilities for accounting with a reasonable length of time, had there been some upper limitation on borrowing, and things of that nature, maybe it, wouldn't be necessary to have the word "may" substituted for the word "shall."

But because this Act is totally unfettered in its grasp for power, in view of the fact that the Minister and the board involved have virtually total control over the industry without further reference to the Legislature, I would just like to think that the final, minor, little amendment to give at least the Minister of Finance some control would be accepted by all concerned. I'm sure the Minister is going to accept it right now.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I'm pleased to hear the Hon. Member's comments. I intended to draft a wire to send to China to the Premier to advise him of the faith of the Member for Victoria with respect to his judgment, if not my own.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I shall be happy to translate that wire for the Minister, if he wishes, but I think the amendment certainly is in order and should be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): On section 20, I just have a short question of the Minister. Why did he find it necessary to put in subsection (2)?

Hon. R.A. Williams: It's simply authorization throughout the time period up until the date noted for expenditures.

Mr. Gibson: It's up to March 31, 1976. I would have thought this could have been included in next year's estimates so that it can be debated at that time.

Hon. R.A. Williams: We think this is the more realistic data in terms of experience.

Mr. Gibson: If I could just get a clarification, Mr. Chairman: is the Minister saying that it's too late at this date to put anything into the estimates for the next fiscal year? I can't believe he's saying that.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I think you'd have to check with the Minister of Finance.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gibson: But presumably you're responsible for this piece of legislation, Mr. Minister, so I would have hoped that you had already checked with the Minister of Finance.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Yes, and he finds this quite acceptable.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I think he's made a mistake, then, because this may well deny this House the right to discuss this appropriation next spring.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Well, maybe you should send the wire to China.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be repetitious on this subject, but this is a point in the whole bill that, as I've said before, really usurps the Legislature itself. Now, this Minister will go to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance shall give him whatever moneys he requests to run this all-powerful timber products board which he is setting up.

This allows the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to effectually do what he wanted to do in the first place, and that is, take taxpayers' money to buy up private concerns in the forest industry and the lumber industry in British Columbia with complete disregard to the Legislature, without coming back to the Legislature. There are no limits

[ Page 5053 ]

on the amount of money that the Minister of Finance shall give to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, And with that money which the Minister of Finance shall give to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to finance this all-powerful board, the powers of which we have debated in this Legislature for the last several days, this Minister can buy shares in individual lumber operations, he can acquire land, he can also put in debt the taxpayers of British Columbia by borrowing money backed by the government, which makes the taxpayers responsible.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, this is without reference whatsoever to this Legislature.

Hon. R.A. Williams: No, no.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, the Minister says no. Well, I'd like the Minister to tell me if I'm wrong. I've got big ears and I'm certainly willing to listen.

But by the Minister's actions in not answering questions, during committee stage on this bill, he has shown a great deal of arrogance towards the Legislature. He has no respect for the Legislature, and that's why he wants to have his own powerful committee which can get money from the Minister of Finance without seeking the authority of this Legislature. As I said yesterday, this Minister is setting up for himself a complete little empire over which he will be the sole dictator in the Province of British Columbia, backed by all of the resources of the Province of British Columbia. That Minister will appoint and pay whatever wages to his flunkies that he puts on this board.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Be more careful with your language; that's not nice.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I've seen the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources operate. I've watched the operation of this government in putting their political hacks in positions of high responsibility, without qualifications, and high salaries in the past 2 1/2 years. I've also witnessed an increase of over 8,000 in the civil service of this province. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says this is par for the course. We're going to appoint political people to these positions; it's done in other jurisdictions. He made a blatant statement in the Legislature that this was taking place, but with complete disregard for the Legislature.

As I said yesterday, this Minister could cut down his estimates going through this Legislature because he can, in essence, get enough money through this board to run his department. He can even run the Forest Service through this department because of the unspecified powers.

I think that we are seeing here today, as we pass this bill, more erosion of the democratic system here in British Columbia. I think, Mr. Chairman, that democracy is on trial in this Legislature here today. Democracy is on trial. Our whole democratic system of requesting funds from the Queen, the basis of the Legislature, the basis of the estimates, is being eroded away here in this Legislature today.

We've seen it in other Acts and we are seeing it again today. I think it's a sorry shame, Mr. Chairman, because the people of the Province of British Columbia did not ask for this and they did not give this government the right to do this in August of 1972.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Let's just check with them.

Mr. Phillips: They did not give this government the right...

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: ...to take away and erode....

Some Hon. Members: Let's go. Let's go now.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: They did not give this government the right to erode the democratic process in this province, which is happening as this bill passes through.

I hope that the people of the Province of British Columbia will realize that the democratic system in British Columbia is going out the window and down the drain here today. (Laughter.) Out the window and down the drain.

Hon. R.A. Williams: Make up your mind. Now which is it?

Mr. Phillips: Well, it is both going out the window and down the drain.

We have seen when the legislation was passed in this Legislature to curb debate. We saw a little bit of democracy die that day. Now, we are not only going to be allowed to debate the estimates but the Minister is taking away the power of this Legislature, the power in the estimates....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Member sometime relate his remarks to the amendment?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair is not saying his

[ Page 5054 ]

remarks are irrelevant; it's simply asking him to relate ....

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, the principle involved in section 20 of this bill is the whole principle of democracy. I think you'll have to agree with me; it's the whole principle of democracy. A Minister no longer has to come to the Crown to ask for funds to run his department. This is the whole principle involved. As I say, this government was not given the authority to completely erode our democratic system, to ride roughshod over the democratic principles when they were elected to office in August of 1972.

Hon. R.A. Williams: It still kind of grinds, doesn't it?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it'll take years and years to get democracy back on the rails here in British Columbia after the next election. It'll take years to strip away the powers given to those infamous cabinet Ministers who now rule with an iron fist without even having to come to this Legislature to seek funds.

This section of this Act says that the Minister of Finance shall give to this dictator any funds that he requires. It's a sad and sorry day, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that you are as aggrieved as I am to see this happening in what we once thought was a democratic province.

Mr. Gibson: The Minister just wants to take this bill on a submarine trip once it passes this Legislature. He just wants to put it under the surface for a year-and-a-half, and that's exactly what he can do in between this section 20 and section 16 dealing with reports.

We may not have another chance to hear officially or to discuss this forest products board in this Legislature until the spring of 1976, a year-and-a-half from now. We probably won't have that opportunity. By spring of 1975, this board and the cabinet under this Act will presumably have moved in important ways to change the structure of the forest industry in British Columbia. They will certainly have moved in respect of chips, and the forest products board will presumably be established.

Progress or whatever is going wrong should be reviewed next spring. We should not have to wait until the spring of 1976. I would hope that the Minister would accept that elementary principle of democracy which has been developed over many centuries; that the Legislature has a chance to look at government activities at least once a year.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move, that in section 20(2) the numeral "1976" be changed to "1975."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is an amendment before the committee, and the Hon. Member proposing this has an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Gibson: What amendment? We're on the section.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Would the Hon. Member pass the amendment up?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 26

Mr. Gibson: Leave to record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Section 20 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 15

[ Page 5055 ]

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker, would you please report that the division took place in committee and ask leave for reporting in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Chabot: On section 21, Mr. Chairman. Section 21 deals with the question of proclamation. Well, I could put an amendment in all right, but I would hope that this wouldn't be proclaimed right away. I would think that September 1, 1977 would be a good day of proclamation. By that time there'll be a new government in British Columbia to deal with this legislation.

Just a few more words, now that it's the last opportunity of speaking on this bill. I want to say how much I resent the extreme arrogance displayed by the Minister during this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member may confine his remarks strictly to the words contained in section 21 of this Act.

Mr. Chabot: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The date of proclamation.

Mr. Chabot: Talking about the proclamation and the advisability of it being proclaimed now or at a later date, I think that many of the Members of this assembly have expressed extreme concern regarding certain sections of this legislation. Whether they should be proclaimed or not is another matter.

But, nevertheless, I certainly resent the kind of silence and the kind of unwillingness on the part of that Minister to answer questions; the kind of arrogance he displays during this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Section 21 approved.

On the title.

Mr. G.S. Wallace: (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of the dissension and argument in this bill has been focused around the purpose of this bill. The Minister has gone a considerable distance in trying to satisfy the complaints of the opposition on that regard by insisting in the definition section that it is just log and wood chips that are concerned. I think there would be nothing more reasonable and coherent in our considerations if the bill should, in fact, be titled "Log and Wood Chips Stabilization Act."

I have an amendment on the order paper. I so move that amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 27

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, could you ask leave of the House to have this division recorded in the Journals?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Title approved.

Hon. R.A. Williams: 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 171, Timber Products Stabilization Act, reported complete with amendments.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R.A. Williams: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 171, Timber Stabilization Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 5056 ]

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, at the beginning of the day's proceedings, I promised to deal with this question raised by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) relating to a stoppage of work on the B.C. Railway, an industrial dispute on which further information has been received today. I've tried to find the authorities that guide the Speaker in deciding whether or not the test is met with regard to urgency of debate required under the standing order.

Just to summarize briefly how the usual rule in standing order 35 has been interpreted in the past, I quote from the Hon. Hugh Shantz, who was Speaker on February 12, 1959. He indicated in the Journals of that year at page 64:

"I do not feel that the matter raised by the Hon. First Member for Burnaby comes within the scope of standing order 35. I refer you to two or three quotes from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition: 'The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a Member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under standing order 26' — which is the federal one — 'must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.'

"The definite matter of urgent public importance, for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.

"Urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but it means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and public interest demands that the discussions take place immediately."

The matter requested for discussion — and this is his decision in the matter that I present to him at that time — in my opinion, has not been brought up at the earliest possible moment, The withdrawal of this service has been a known possibility for several weeks and could therefore have been brought forward at an earlier date and, in fact, could have been discussed in ordinary debate before now.

Further, it was announced earlier this week that the Attorney-General was going to Ottawa today, and instructions could have been given to him by this House before this. So he rejected the application that I had made on that occasion. The pertinency of this is, however, that although ordinary industrial disputes are a matter for ordinary administration of the law, we are faced here with something that none of the Members have raised in this discussion, but to which I have given consideration. That is that Members of this government sit on the board.

So quite apart from the Labour Relations Board and the ordinary administration of the law, there is a question of urgency of debate where the Members are in the House who are on the board of the B.C. Railway. Therefore I feel that the matter is for the House to determine under the standing orders rather than through the Speaker, because it is not an ordinary dispute involving other parties but involving a board composed of Members of the government.

From that point of view, I have to ask under standing order 35 whether Members give leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of debating a specific matter of urgent importance, namely the cessation of work on the B.C. Rail at the present time and the consequent public dislocation resulting there from.

Shall leave be granted? How many support the leave?

More than nine do. Will the Hon. Member put his motion, which I have already stated?

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, will you just give me time to complete...? I have made the motion verbally. Do you want me to write it out?

Mr. Speaker: I wish you'd do that. But, actually, may I phrase it for you? You move that the House do adjourn to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the cessation of work on the B.C. Railway.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the stoppage of work on the British Columbia Railway.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Does the Hon.

[ Page 5057 ]

Member wish to speak on the motion?

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have stated previously this afternoon, the British Columbia Railway is really the lifeline of the interior and northern parts of this province.

This also has a great bearing on the economy, not only of the lower mainland but even of the economy on Vancouver Island. This railway, which is basically a resource railway, moves the materials to and from sawmills and pulp mills. The railway was constructed basically as a resource railway, and industry has located along the right-of-way on this railway.

In most of the towns and cities and municipalities along the railway there have been industrial complexes built up. Indeed the whole growth in the central interior and northern parts of this railway was built up on the basis of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. Towns such as Chetwynd, Fort Nelson, Mackenzie are completely dependent on the British Columbia Railway for their livelihood and the livelihood of the workers in the industries there.

At the present time the lumber industry elsewhere in the world is at an all-time low. If we see the stoppage of that small lumber market which we presently have, that will mean the complete cessation of work in our pulp mills and work in those lumber industries and sawmills which are presently going on.

In a province where the labour force has one of the largest percentages of any province of Canada of unemployment, with predictions that this rate of unemployment will grow during the winter months, it is the responsibility of this government to discuss this matter and see if there is any way that we can, as a Legislature, offer to the workers on the British Columbia Railway a guarantee that we will bargain in good faith, that we will have their interests at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I don't propose that this Legislature should force these workers back to work. But by debating it this afternoon, if the Minister and the other Members of this Legislature who are directors on the British Columbia Railway can make statements that the workers on the British Columbia Railway will be treated equally with workers on the national railways in Canada.... The Minister has the power to send mediators over through the Department of Labour and give assurance — using the same methods, Mr. Speaker, as were used by the offices of the Provincial Secretary in telling those engineers on the ferry system that negotiations would continue in good faith — that their interests would be looked after. This Legislature has the power to do that. Those Ministers who are directors on the British Columbia Railway have the power to do that.

What really concerns me, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate you allowing this debate to go on — is that if some settlement or some assurance or some conclusions are riot reached here this afternoon, we will be back in this Legislature in two weeks debating a bill which will actually force those workers back to work, because an emergency situation in the economy of British Columbia will exist at that time if the strike is not settled.

We have had two bills pass through this Legislature — one to put the firefighters back to work where an emergency existed. Indeed, we will have an emergency of greater proportions where the livelihood and the lives of citizens of this province will be at stake. We have also had legislation to force the elevator construction industry back to work. In my estimation, although the situation that existed in the elevator strike was grave, it does not have anywhere near the economic proportions that a strike on the railway would.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who is a director of the British Columbia Railway, to give us some assurance and to assure the workers of the British Columbia Railway that the government will certainly see that the workers on the British Columbia Railway are treated equally as well as the workers on the national railways.

We also must consider not only the lumber industry and those employed in the lumber industry, but we must also consider the movement of food stuffs, sugar and grain — grain particularly from the Peace River area — all of the goods and services that are supplied to the north and central parts of this province.

As I said, there are areas such as, specifically, Fort Nelson where the trucking industry has given way to the railway and the railway takes in the supplies to that particular area. Actually, the entire well-being, not only of the workers but of everybody in that community, depends on British Columbia Railway.

In the community of Chetwynd, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of the work force is out of work in that particular community.

There are other areas along the line that will be equally hard put. So I urge the Minister of Labour to give us some assurance that some definite positive action.... He has the administrative ability to assure this Legislature that members on that railway will be treated equally with members elsewhere and that the railways will again roll.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): I indicated earlier in response to the motion from the Hon. Member that I did not consider this a valid matter of urgent importance at this time.

It certainly is a matter of importance but, quite frankly, I see little benefit of indulging in a debate on a labour dispute within this legislative forum, because strike action by workers is part of the collective bargaining system which is recognized throughout the western world, and whenever that

[ Page 5058 ]

right is exercised, there is inevitably disruption which flows to the public.

The Member for South Peace River indicated that the Legislature has taken action in the past with respect to certain strikes in this province, and that's quite correct. But in those cases, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the issues were much more grave. In the firefighters' dispute we had a valid matter of the very safety of the life and limb of citizens of this province which the government has a clear responsibility to protect. What we are looking at with respect to the railway strike is economic disruption and hardship, undoubtedly, but hardly a matter of life and limb.

Mr. Speaker, the elevator constructors' dispute was an exercise in voluntary arbitration between the parties, whereby they had agreed and undertaken to abide by an arbitration system, of their own volition. When one of the parties to that commitment violated his obligation, I was duty-bound, as the referee of that commitment, to ensure that it was complied with. That was not an initiative taken in light of the disruption in the industry; it was an initiative taken through the obligation that I had to hold the parties to an agreement that had been achieved under the auspices of the Department of Labour. So it's quite a different situation than the one we're dealing with today.

I have sympathy for the Member for South Peace River. I know that his constituency is affected in an adverse way. However, the Member has indicated by his comments today that he lacks an understanding of the dynamics of collective bargaining, the whole dynamics of industrial relations in this province. That's an additional reason, Mr. Speaker, why I see no particular benefit. Indeed, I see only the danger of statements emanating from this chamber which could serve to inflame the climate for a possible settlement on the railway.

I question very strongly the wisdom of intervening and interrupting the professional degree of mediation services that are available from the department in favour of political comment by people who may be suffering in their constituency but who have no expertise to contribute anything meaningful to a solution to this dispute.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that in light of this, in light of the fact that there are other initiatives available to the Department of Labour should the parties request assistance.... There's the availability of industrial inquiry commissions, provided both parties agree. There is the availability of further mediation if the parties agree. These services are available on a high professional basis in a much more effective way than could be contributed by political comment.

In light of that, and through my support for the collective bargaining system, which implies a faith in the responsibility of the parties across the bargaining table to recognize the impact their action is having on the community, to soberly consider the need for resolution and to avail themselves of the services that can be provided to them, I am confident that the matter will be resolved in a satisfactory way to all concerned.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, according to standing order 33, I move that this House do now revert to orders of the day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion is always in order, and there's no debate for the motion. If the House does not agree with the motion, it can....

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: If the House does not agree with the motion under standing order 33, it can continue on this matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Standing order 33: "A motion for reading or proceeding to the Orders of the Day shall have precedence to any motion before the House."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: "No amendment to or debate on this motion shall be allowed."

So I have to put the motion, when it's proposed in the House, that we revert to the standing orders of the day.

Some Hon. Members: Closure, closure!

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the Minister of Labour uses a form of closure to stifle debate...

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: ...on a very important matter. Northern British Columbia will hear about this, I'll tell you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The motion is always in order for the standing orders.

[ Page 5059 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 178, Mr. Speaker,

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.

On section 10.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in the name of the Attorney-General on page 19 of today's orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Mr. Chairman: The amendment as printed adds a new 10(a) to section 10.

Amendment approved.

On section 10 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, section 10 is an amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act and it essentially provides the Royal Bank, the lender of last resort, with the ability to collect its debts for failure to repay on loans by way of having the threat of suspension of a driver's licence. We were discussing this previously, Mr. Chairman, and would like just to review why the Royal Bank finds itself in this curious position, and why we are giving them a right and threat and club to hold over the heads of defaulting debtors such as we give no other private lender in the Province of British Columbia.

First, let's go over the background as to what happened and why the NDP government finds itself in bed with the Royal Bank; why the NDP government which previously, in other debates, has constantly repeated that it was on the side of the small people, now finds itself very much on the side of the biggest in the land against the small people.

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall when the ICBC was set up and there was some discussion and dispute as to time payments and the possibility of buying short-term insurance, the Minister made the statement that there would be no problem because money would be loaned and the person involved could then buy their insurance for the year. So, as a result, the Royal Bank entered in, eager to get government business — its first crack at government business; the Royal Bank is the landlord of ICBC — came in with the great plan that they would offer, without any question, credit to anyone wishing to buy insurance. As the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said in a recent press release, "The Royal Bank of Canada has provided premium loans to any and every motorist who applied, without exception," Mr. Strachan said. I quote his press release of October 31, 1974.

So the Royal Bank, in its enthusiasm for the government honey pot, decided to do this great thing for the government — provide money, loans, for every single person who wished to buy insurance. You will remember we had a few questions about the $100 limit, and things of that nature, but essentially that is what they did. They thought they were going to get a very substantial amount of business because previously a fair number of people had bought their insurance on a time-payment plan. They expected 40 per cent of the business, but instead they wound up with 5. I would just like to illustrate why they've got no more than 5 per cent, namely the 62,000 policies which were issued.

They didn't get much more business because all they would allow the agents for filling out the forms for the Royal Bank was $1. They gave them $1 to fill out the forms and handle all the paper work for the Royal Bank. So the agents, when a person came before them — remember these were very busy times for the agents — when a person came before them saying, "We would like to borrow money; we can't pay this right away." the agent would say, "Fine, go and see your bank. Get out of here and go and see a finance company, credit union or bank, and borrow money and come back and give us the cheque." And so, for most of the borrowers, this was done. They were set out to save the agent the work of filling out all the Royal Bank forms, for which he only received $1.

Now, if a person came back, Mr. Chairman, to the

[ Page 5060 ]

agent and said, "Look, I tried to get money at the bank. My own bank won't lend me a dollar. They know I'm a bad risk. I tried the finance company. They said no way. I tried the credit union. They said, 'Where have you been? You've never been a member of ours before so we are not going to help you,'" only then did the Royal Bank step in. Without any check of credit, what they did was issue the loan. The agents filled out the forms for them, and some 62,000 policies were issued in this way.

I want to point out that the Royal Bank became the lender of last resort in this instance, and they picked up a large proportion of very bad debts. Who are these people? Well, we found out that 3,500 of them only made the down payment, and these delinquent debts all went out to collection. We have heard that the Royal Bank lost $750,000 on this bad business; this bad business which they entered into simply to get the goodwill of the Minister and the government so they could then become the ICBC bank and all could be dealt with by the one bank and the one company.

So you see what happened. The good accounts went elsewhere, because it wasn't in the agents' interest to fill out the paperwork for the Royal Bank. They said, "Look, go away, find the money elsewhere and come back." If the person was any good as a risk, that is what happened. But 62,000 of them did take out the Royal Bank loan, and many, many of these defaulted.

Now, who are we dealing with? We are dealing essentially with the 62,000 British Columbians who are the least able to pay. We are dealing with the 62,000 British Columbians who are probably the poorest on the economic ladder. A larger percentage of these will be Indian than is normal in the regular driving public — a substantially larger proportion will be Indian, Mr. Chairman.

A substantially larger proportion will be welfare people — people who have fallen on hard times and now find themselves on welfare. But most of these people you could generalize by saying they are essentially, in the economic sense, underprivileged — through perhaps no fault of their own, through perhaps their own fault; we don't know. But they are the underprivileged, economically. Obviously they are the people who are not paying back, and they are the people whom the Royal Bank has suddenly discovered it is losing money on — $750,000 — and the Royal Bank naturally wants its money back.

But let's just think a bit about the Royal Bank. The profits on loans of the Royal Bank were up 67 per cent over last year. They are not exactly going broke, and the Premier tells us this on numerous occasions. The Royal Bank went into this scheme with the Minister and ICBC to get government business, and it got government business. It got plenty of government business — all the ICBC accounts.

Every agent in B.C. had to open the Royal Bank account, except those who phoned down to Atlanta, Georgia. They had a choice of phoning down to Atlanta, Georgia, every time they made a deposit, or dealing with the Royal Bank. That's called a Hobson's choice.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The fact is that the Royal Bank did get a large slice of business, and the price they paid was taking up 60,000 bad loans. Now we have the Minister coming in and saying, "Well, we're going to have this section to allow us to take away the driver's licence of anybody who owes money to the Royal."

We say on this side of the House, which I think is fair, that if the Royal Bank makes bad loans it's tough lines on the Royal Bank. It's their bad judgment, their bad business sense, and they've got all the normal avenues of collection just as every other lender in the province has. But why should we add in the club of suspension of a driver's licence when that driver's licence is not related to the insurance on any particular vehicle? This is not a case of them having borrowed money for the driver's licence or the driver's certificate; this is the case of them having borrowed money for the vehicle. We say that the two things are separate. They're treated separately by ICBC, they're treated separately by the Motor Vehicle Branch and by the Minister. They've always been treated separately before in this way.

When it comes down to the question of giving the Royal Bank, that enormously powerful private financial institution, extra muscle to muscle these people who are the 62,000 least privileged in our society, we say no and we ask why. The fact is that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can make all sorts of jokes about the people who have taken loans from the Royal Bank to pay their insurance.

I wonder what the attitude of the Attorney-General is. We know he's out of the House, but what about the attitude that he expressed during the Summary Convictions Amendment Act of June, 1974, when he talked about those people who are forced to pay fines because they're poor? These are the same people we're talking of here. Their licences are to be taken away from them because they're poor. There will be a far higher percentage of Indian and minorities, a far higher percentage of people on welfare, a far higher percentage of people who've fallen on hard times in the Province of British Columbia through no fault of their own. These are the people whom you are treating in a discriminatory fashion so that the Royal Bank can have an extra means of collection.

I wonder why, when we had this discussion on the

[ Page 5061 ]

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, the Attorney-General spoke feelingly about the fact that the law up to that time and still now is unjust to the poor. There is a different justice for those who can afford to pay fines, and those who can't are forced to go to jail.

The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) expressed the same sentiment. There was a lengthy intervention by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who I think again spoke eloquently along the lines that the Attorney-General had set at the outset of the debate, saying that when you're dealing with the more unfortunate in society, you shouldn't force them into jail simply because they don't have money. We say that when you're dealing with the unfortunate in society, you shouldn't give the Royal Bank any more powers of collection than they have with any other person.

We think that in the case of this insurance loan which has been made by the Royal Bank, the Royal Bank should simply suffer the consequences of any bad debts that it has accrued. It has received benefits in other forms. It has received ICBC business. It's the landlord of ICBC; it's the banker of ICBC. Why in addition should we put forward amendments such as this and vote on amendments such as this to give it extra power to collect from the poor people? It has not been justified by the Minister; it has not been justified by any government Member. I just totally fail to see why we have to treat this person differently.

What does it mean in realistic terms? It means that that debt takes priority over just about everything else that that person spends money on. If he has a family and he needs his driver's licence to get to work and back, the kids will get less because he has to pay off that driver's debt insurance loan or lose his driver's licence. He won't treat that debt like every other debt. It will get immediate priority because in our society driving, although a privilege, as the Minister says, has become a necessity for most people in terms of their work.

So that debt takes total priority over other things. The Royal Bank takes priority over his kids, and that's where the money goes. That's what the Royal Bank wants. I'm not blaming them for wanting to get the extra power and muscle to lean upon people who have borrowed money from them and failed to pay. I'm simply saying that there's no reason for the government, the Legislature or the people of British Columbia to be involved in giving that bank extra muscle to lean upon these people.

I cannot understand what has happened to the government. In the Summary Convictions Amendment Act debate, page 3650 of Hansard June 3 of this year, we discussed at great length the need for flexibility, and the need for making it easy on people who were poor when it came to this question of payment. We were talking them of payment of fines. We now find them turning right around and putting in provisions which harm the poor and aid the rich. I just cannot understand this total reversal of policy. I cannot understand the need for this amendment and I would urge that it be defeated.

The Minister in his press release pointed out that it was the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia which had arranged premium financing through the Royal Bank.

"The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has made it easy and convenient for motorists to buy their automobile insurance by accepting uncertified cheques and by arranging a premium finance plan through the Royal Bank of Canada which provided premium loans to any and every motorist who applied without exception."

Perhaps the time has come for the Minister to tell us what that agreement was with the Royal Bank. Perhaps the time has come for him to explain why it is necessary now and what commitment was made to the Royal Bank which makes it necessary for the Royal Bank to be put in this enormously preferred position over any other lender in the Province of British Columbia? What deal was made? What agreement did the Minister come to with that bank which leads him now, after the bank has lost money, to lean upon the poor, the Indians, the people on welfare, the unfortunate, with the least ability to pay? What is it that causes him to come down on the side of the biggest corporation and ignore the problems of the small person?

We're not suggesting that these loans be forgiven; we're not suggesting that the Royal Bank not have a right to collect. We are simply saying: why is it they get a special privilege denied every other debtor in British Columbia?

I think if the Minister cannot explain that to satisfaction of this House, this section 10 should be defeated. It should be defeated because the provision is unjust. It's discriminatory in favour of the Royal Bank among all other lenders in the province. It discriminates against the poorest and weakest section of our society.

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, the Member who sat down, as other Members, made a great many mistakes in what he has stated to this House.

First of all, the Royal Bank, to the best of my knowledge, is not the landlord of ICBC.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: To the best of my knowledge, the Royal Bank is not the landlord of

[ Page 5062 ]

ICBC.

The next thing, the Royal Bank had the ICBC business before there was any financing planned. They bid for that business, with, I think, seven or eight other institutions.

Mr. Gardom: Did they bid for the financing plan?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No. They bid for the business of ICBC and came in with the lowest bid. That's why they got that business, so you were wrong on that point.

Did they bid for the finance plan? They were the only bank that would provide it. Every other bank turned it down.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just a moment. You say this is a new procedure. As a matter of fact, the private insurance companies used to have an organization called CAIFO, operated by the private insurance companies, through which the agents financed automobile insurance. If any individual defaulted or fell in arrears on their payments to the CAIFO company, the insurance was cancelled. And the superintendent of motor vehicles was informed that that person's insurance was cancelled. Therefore, he could no longer legally use that vehicle. The right to drive that vehicle was taken away from him.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's what I said. The right to drive that vehicle was taken away from him. That was a pre-existing situation. Because they had failed or were unable for one reason or another to pay their insurance.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll get to that in a minute. I've got it all down here. This was the situation which existed before.

The poor people you speak of who had agreed to make a payment lost the plates off that licence. The RCMP were sent around to pick up the plates.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No. I'll get to that in a minute, I said. I'm now talking about the situation that existed. The "poor people" you speak of — the defaulters — under the private insurance operations lost their licence plates....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, they did. They couldn't legally drive that vehicle without insurance.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Oh, yes they could. Yes, they could. Yes, they could and they did. They did. That vehicle was uninsured. It was against the law to put that vehicle on the road, and because they couldn't make the payments, that was a pre-existing situation.

Now, the Member said that there were about 5 per cent of the people who finished up with the Royal Bank. I want to remind this House of a section we passed earlier in this same statute. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey said that under that amendment — I think it was section 1 — ICBC was going to pick up $6 million.

Now, uninsured or hit-and-run drivers...we know from the records that there were about 5 per cent of the people of this province, who, despite the fact that there was a law since '68 which said that you cannot operate a motor vehicle without insurance, were illegally operating a motor vehicle. And most of the hit-and-run cases, when they were finally caught up to, had hit-and-run because they had no insurance, and they knew they had no insurance. So that's about the five per cent.

You see, they were able to do this because at that time you could get your vehicle plates without having to buy insurance at the same time. Then we changed the system. You can no longer get your plates or your valid decals without at the same time buying insurance.

It's that same 5 per cent who were driving illegally in the past who found they couldn't get their plates any more without at the same time buying insurance, who took advantage of this particular proposal, and they are driving without paying their insurance. That's what they are doing now. It's the same figure — the same percentage — 5 per cent, and that was the estimate we had of uninsured drivers prior to the incorporation of ICBC.

Under previous systems — under the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund — every policy holder had to pay. We had to pay about 3 per cent on every policy in order to make up for that uninsured driver.

Here's a thing...you talk about cancelling...here's a Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund notice that was sent out in September of this year. This was somebody who owed $24,000 to the Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund, and remember, we'd already paid for it; every policy holder had already paid for it, but they're still collecting it.

"Our records indicate that your payments are now two months in arrears. Would you please bring your account up to date within 10 days and thereby avoid suspension of your

[ Page 5063 ]

driver's licence."

That's the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund — sending out letters like this...suspension of your driver's licence.

An Hon. Member: They won't pay the claims that occur.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Because they won't pay the $24,000. This is the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund telling them they'll get their driver's licence cancelled. This isn't ICBC; this isn't the government.

First of all, the first thing I want to draw your attention to is the fact that this section makes no reference to the Royal Bank at all. And as to the question as to whether we are going to allow people to continue to drive cars who are not validly meeting their commitments to pay for the insurance, because somewhere down the line all the rest of the people of this province are going to have to pay for that. It's the same as the pre-existing situation: if you hadn't made your payments, they'd get on again at the licence plates.

There's now insurance attached to the driver's licence, and that has nothing whatever to do with the Royal Bank. They are no part of that financing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right. That's right, but if they write an NSF cheque, as many of them have done, then I want the right to take away that driver's licence, because he has defaulted on that insurance part. Many of the people who had points.... Remember we don't put the additional costs on the car any more — it goes on the driver's premium. And they just write an NSF cheque, they've got the form and they're clutching the licence, and they're home free. So the licence part has nothing whatever to do with the Royal Bank.

But if there is a case of hardship, a special case, that can certainly be drawn to attention, as section 4 of the Act says:

"The Superintendent may at any time during the term of the suspension of a licence made under this section, if it is his opinion advisable to do so, reduce or cancel the remaining period of the suspension."

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. But there is that section there which, if there is an individual case where somebody needs it for their work, or so on, the superintendent can reduce or suspend....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, I don't think so. In my opinion, no, and my advice is no. If it shows up that it does.... My advice is no, that section there gives the superintendent the opportunity. So that takes care of any real changes. So I think I have indicated to you why this is in, and why this amendment should pass.

Hon. Mr. Hall: There is one thing that should be cleared up, in view of the gloomy remarks of the leader of the Liberal Party — that there is no intention whatsoever on the part of the government, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to take any action whatsoever, that would be allowed by this section, on any person who is in arrears of a debt incurred for the licence, the premiums, the certificates, or any of those things in the year 1974 to 1975.

But, I agree entirely with what the Liberal leader said, that the Royal Bank will take its burnps and grinds and its hard lines. That was a deal that was made — a proper, commercial, corporate arrangement between two companies, and that stands. I think just to make sure the Liberal leader has all the information he requires to join into this debate, he should know that.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): It was indeed a pleasure this afternoon to have a rational and calm approach from the Hon. Minister to this point, Mr. Chairman, but the fact that continues to give us a great deal of concern is the possibility of error.

The Minister referred to subsection 4 of the statute wherein the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles does have a degree of discretion, but unfortunately we're not considering subsection 4; we're considering subsection 7, and in the two lines from the end it's very, very clear: "The Superintendent shall suspend the registration and licence of any person" and so forth and so on. So it appears to be mandatory.

Perhaps if the Hon. Minister would change that "shall" for "may", we could overcome a lot of the difficulties we're talking about today, because there is one factor that has not been made effectively clear by any speaker yet in this debate, and perhaps I will fall into the same category, unfortunately.

But I will try to do my level best to explain the point: that is the problems of error, Mr. Minister. We find in no end of the statutes that you are passing at the present time that you're granting unto yourselves almost a totality of Cabinet discretion, but we're not granting enough discretion to those people who have to regulate the statutes, and particularly the judiciary.

We have found already, Mr. Minister, that people are being convicted by computer in this province, and it's terribly wrong. We have found already, according to a newspaper account — Jack Wasserman's column a

[ Page 5064 ]

couple of days ago — where an individual was convicted because he didn't happen to have a valid driver's certificate, that the Judge didn't follow the law — he rendered a fine of $15 whereas a mandatory fine of $250 is called for under the statute.

That type of legislation is embarrassing the judiciary. It's embarrassing the people who have to enforce the laws of this province, and it's totally wrong insofar as this subject is concerned. Totally wrong. That's why we wish to make sure that there's an absolute safeguard here. Eliminate any grey areas.

If you wish to bring in this amendment, and you wish to have it definitely done on a discretionary basis, please don't in one section of one statute find one subsection of it that it's discretionary, and in the other subsection it's mandatory. Let is be discretionary throughout.

The other point that I mentioned to you, Mr. Minister: we are into a serious situation in this province. Laws have got to be clear; they've got to be concise; they've got to be capable of being interpreted and they have to be enforced. The ICBC laws, insofar as these driver's certificates are concerned, are an absolute disgrace. If you're not prepared to grant amnesty to these people, I think that's totally appalling.

Are you going to suggest that these people can come to you on their hands and knees and plead for some degree of compassion? I wish you'd mention that to the House today. This is one of the reasons that I emphasize in a discussion such as this: please do not take away the discretion; and make it abundantly clear that the discretion will continue. It is your view, as you stated on your feet, that the discretion is there.

Well, I may be incorrect, but I differ with you, because I see the word "shall" in there, and it's pretty clear to me what "shall" means under statutory interpretation. I would suggest that the Hon. Minister, if he wishes this section to go through.... Unfortunately, with the power of government, you're going to put it through anyway, but don't force-feed it through. Go ahead and just change that word to "shall" in subsection (7).

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No.

Mr. Gardom: "Shall" to "may" is what I intended to say.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, I don't think the Member.... As I say, in my opinion, section 4 gives the superintendent — not me, the superintendent — the right to....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I know it says that under (7), but then the reaction against (7) lies not with me but with the superintendent, and he may. Now I think you'd agree with me, Mr. Member, that if an individual obviously is being a deadbeat — has the money to pay and just simply hasn't been paying — he should get hit with the law.

Mr. Gardom: I agree totally.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right, and this is why I don't want to make it mandatory that the superintendent shall do this. I think it's discretionary with the superintendent, not with me. So if it is a case where it's an economic impossibility for some reason or other, then he has that discretion in there. But I don't want a deadbeat to get away with it, and I'm sure you don't.

Mr. Gardom: I don't, but I also don't wish to find an innocent person subject to an unfortunate interpretation, which capacity is completely available within the definition of this statute as it now stands.

Will you accept an amendment to subsection (7) to change that word "shall" to "may" and say that the superintendent of motor vehicles "may" exercise his discretion, and make it abundantly clear? Then it complements what you've stated to the House. It complements what you've stated to the House this afternoon.

This isn't a political matter; it's a question of interpretation. You've said that it shall be discretionary. I agree with you, but the subsection unfortunately does not grant that right, Mr. Minister. Look at the bottom line; read it. It says: "shall suspend the registration and licence." Say that the superintendent "may" suspend the registration and licence, and you've accomplished what we're both talking about.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I think the Member indicated earlier that it does not apply to the current year.

Mr. Gardom: No, that was the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, the other Minister said that. Now we are now in the process of re-examining every section. I think we should just pass this amendment and get on with it, because I'm convinced that the discretion is there. We're examining every clause to see what amendments should be prepared for the next session....

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Minister, whatever is your fear to say what you mean? I can't fathom your refusal.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll explain it to you.

[ Page 5065 ]

Mr. Gardom: Well, if it's something the public shouldn't hear, something we have to hear in the back room, I don't want to hear it. Tell the public right here, right now; what is behind your reasoning? You say to make it discretionary. We say "Hooray, make it discretionary;" and you won't do it.

Mr. Minister, is the word "shall" discretionary in the statute? Ask any of your legal advisers. You've got the Deputy Attorney-General in the House right now; go and have a word with him and hoist it for two minutes.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I found this discussion fascinating and interesting this afternoon. I'm pleased to see that the Minister is quite willing to listen to the various problems which this section creates. I'd like to bring to his attention how this section can compound a problem which is already occurring in the Motor Vehicle Branch to do with the suspension of drivers' licences for non-payment.

I want to talk to you about what is currently happening and how this additional power can compound a problem which is now occurring.

I'd like to bring to your attention the case of a young university student in a university in Vancouver, who spent three and a half hours in jail because he apparently neglected to notify the Motor Vehicle Branch of a change of address within 10 days. Now obviously we have deadbeats who aren't prepared to pay their bills. who are prepared even to go to the extent of giving you NSF cheques, who are obviously not prepared to tell you where they move when they move; and this is the point I'm leading up to.

But here is a young university student issued with a summons for his arrest, never notified of the fact that this summons had been issued. The summons is here, the warrant for the arrest of a person charged with an offence. The offence is the failure to notify the Motor Vehicle Branch of a change of address. Now I took out my own driver's licence, which, I must confess, is one of the old ones. I don't need to buy one until next year. But nowhere on my driver's licence does it say that I must notify you within 10 days that I have moved or that, if I fail to notify you, it's an offence that I can end up in jail with.

I also looked at my own auto driver's insurance form which, granted, does have a place for change of address on it, but it doesn't say that it's an offence. It doesn't anywhere say that I can end up in jail for not having notified you.

Now this young individual had a minor motor vehicle accident where someone actually ran into him. He wasn't even in the car. He went down to the police station to report the accident, and from the police station he phoned the Motor Vehicle Branch.... I'm sorry, he phoned the ICBC. He asked if he could have his car, and they said: "I'm sorry, you can't have it, because the police have seized your car."

So he said: "Seized! Why has my car been seized?"

"Seized because of an outstanding warrant for arrest." That's a warrant for arrest for failure to notify.

Not only that, they said: "Please don't leave the office, " and they sent two officers from the main downtown police station to the office where he was, and they put him in the paddy wagon. They didn't even put him in a private police car, an unmarked car; they put him in a paddy wagon. They took him down and they threw him in jail. He sat there for three and a half hours.

They wouldn't take a cheque from him. This young man had plenty of money in the bank. They refused to take a cheque from him. They refused even to let anyone go around the corner to the office where the bank was to see if the cheque was good. They allowed him one phone call, one phone call only.

Fortunately he found somebody home who came down, and they took $20 from him as a bond — a $20 bond before they let him out of jail three and a half hours later.

On top of that, they summoned him to go to court, The young individual hired a lawyer and went to court. On the day the court was convened there was nothing on the docket to indicate that he was being charged. Nothing. So he said to the judge: "What am I here for?" The judge said: "Well, the charges have been dropped." Nobody told him. He wasn't notified.

Do you know the irony of the whole thing? He lived where he said he lived. He was at the address where he said he was during the period in which he was charged. Absolutely incredible! Now here's a young man who's a university law student, and when he's finished he has to sign a statement to say whether he ever had been arrested — yes or no. This poor fellow is going to have to say yes, he was arrested, and to this day he is unable to get an answer from the court to say that he was arrested improperly or illegally. He has no reply.

I'd just love to read into the record the lawyer's letter to the court which up to this moment is not answered. Now you may think that this is irrelevant to what we're discussing, but it is exactly what can happen to an individual who chooses — not as this young man did, who didn't notify you because he was where he said he was — that maybe he isn't going to tell you. Not only is he going to lose his driver's licence, not only is he going to lose the insurance on his car; he could very well end up in jail.

I think this is a very dangerous section, and I think it should be looked at again a little more carefully before we so glibly pass it this afternoon.

[ Page 5066 ]

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, I didn't raise a point of order when the Member was speaking. That case obviously did not relate to this section, but I wanted to hear the case.

Mr. Morrison: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That kind of law enforcement is totally unjustified. That kind of law enforcement is totally unjustified and certainly I would not be a party — and I am sure the Attorney-General's office would not be a party — to that kind of law enforcement. I would like the details of the case to follow it up. But, as I say, it didn't relate to this section.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I won't discuss the relevance of the Member's speech, because it's the kind of information we want. It's the kind of information that can be sent to the office of even the acting Attorney-General if he wants to. The fact of the matter is that that kind of action, of course, is entirely out of order, and nobody can justify it and nobody would seek to do so. Let me just remind the Member of one thing: it is because of the passage of legislation by this government that that young gentleman and yourself can have some recourse about what's happened — which you couldn't do before.

Mr. Chairman: Having had that little exchange now from both sides, I would like to remind Members that that subject is out of order. I let it go because it seemed partially relevant, although it really was out of order. I'd like, if possible, now to get back to section 10.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I think that while the subject might have been out of order, the idea there are errors made is certainly in order.

That was the point being made by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

I have in my hand my temporary licence which expires in four days, and 90 days will have gone by. I only hope the Minister will get me another licence so I'm not breaking the law on the weekend when I try and drive. I applied for the licence August 30 and I'm still waiting for it. Probably there is some foul-up in the computer somewhere.

In any event, back to the section. The Minister has been, I think, far more considerate than previously on this section, and we appreciate that.

However, in his decision he talked about the insurance on the vehicle and the need to take that vehicle off the road to take the plates off that vehicle if it were not insured. That's fine. No question about that. But in actual fact, to be relevant to this debate, the Minister would have had to talk about the driver's licence, which he did towards the end.

It is that particular point which we would like to zero in on because that's precisely what section 10 does. It takes away the driver's licence for a debt which is incurred for a different subject, namely for the insurance of the vehicle. It's not a debt, as the Minister pointed out, for the driver's certificate. If there were any debt for the driver's certificate, perhaps this section might have some relevance. But because the Minister has clearly distinguished between the automobile insurance, the driver's certificate and the driver's licence, I think he has probably destroyed his own case for putting in this section.

The three things are separate. The driver's licence and the driver's certificate are not related to an individual vehicle which may or may not to insured and for which the driver concerned may or may not have borrowed money.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We appreciate also the statement by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) that this is not to be brought into effect until 1975-76. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that the date of proclamation will be delayed, but we appreciate his statement there. We wonder, in view of that fact, whether it would not be possible to just drop this section until we get the omnibus bill in the spring. Every session we have this type of omnibus bill. Every session we have a few pages of odds and ends, some of which are fairly far-reaching but nevertheless are relatively small amendments which deal with a great number of statutes.

We think that the amendment to the Motor-vehicle Act, as the Provincial Secretary has pointed out, is not really for this year anyway; it is for the future. We think it should be dropped so that the whole question we have raised could be properly examined by the law officers of the Crown. The whole principle of trying to get at deadbeats but at the same time making it mandatory on the superintendent of insurance to go after others should be looked into further.

It is easy to talk about the deadbeats who are trying to avoid paying money when they have money in the bank or to talk about the people who are responsible for hit-and-run, and to take all these people, lump them all together, and categorize all the people in the position of being unable to pay their Royal Bank loans as being either deadbeats or those who would otherwise be involved in hit-and-run.

But the fact of the matter is that there are others involved in this area. We cannot lump everybody together, using coloured words such as "deadbeat" or the "hit-and-run driver." We have to distinguish and we have to make it clear that there are some who will

[ Page 5067 ]

be treated unjustly by this particular provision.

We also have to make it clear that what we are doing for the Royal Bank in this instance is doing something for which we are quite unwilling — and rightly unwilling — to do for any other lender in the Province of British Columbia with respect to other debts.

The insurance on the automobile, as the Minister has stated, for which Royal Bank money was borrowed, is something separate from the driver's licence. The two things simply have to be considered separately. His statement did not indicate to me that they were treated the same previously. Indeed, the only licence he talked about was the vehicle licence and not the driver's licence.

It's clear that we are extending the law with section 10. We are extending it in a way which will work hardship on the section of the population least able to fight back. We think that section 10, in view of the Provincial Secretary's statement, should simply be stood over for a number of months until we've had a chance to look into it properly, until the law officers of the Crown have had a chance to took into the principle involved here, and until the backbench of the NDP government caucus has had an opportunity to check into why the Royal Bank is getting preferred treatment. At that time, if it's still considered to be necessary, let the government bring it in again.

But at this stage, according to what the Provincial Secretary has said, it's unnecessary anyway. I would most strongly urge the government to withdraw this or, alternatively, that we vote it down.

Mr. Gardom: The Provincial Secretary in his remarks welcomed the opposition to give him some examples of problems. He has said, "We're prepared to have open ears," or words to that general effect. This is the type of situation, Mr. Chairman, that we wish to overcome. We wish to overcome the problem of error and, in this, we have a problem of error in the amendment that is proposed.

Here is a situation of error. It's about four lines. It's a letter from a lady who says she is a widow over 70 years of age. She lives on the combined income of less than $300 a month. She says she purchased her car insurance amounting to $141, at which time she was assured that was all that was required of her. She did that in February of this year.

"On the morning of November 9, I had a minor accident as I was coming out of a supermarket. The police didn't give me a ticket or lay any charges. They merely asked me to fill out forms which they had given me and take them to their office as well as to the ICBC, which I did."

And this 70-year-old widow continues:

"At the office of the ICBC I was asked for my driver's certificate which I had never had. I was then instructed to go to the Motor Vehicle Branch in Richmond and procure it, informing me that my claim could not be honoured without it."

She had paid $141 for her insurance. She's over 70, she lives on an income of less than $300 a month, and she can't collect. She says this:

"They did find out, however, that the computer had made an error in my birth date."

Now, that's not right. Those kind of wrongs should be eliminated. That's why we're suggesting this, Mr. Minister. It complements the statements that you and the Provincial Secretary made; it complements the unfortunate analogies that I've had to present to the House this afternoon, and also the First Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

Let there be no grey areas in this amendment at all and change the word "shall" to "may" in subsection 7. We'll know then that the superintendent of motor vehicles will have without any question of a doubt an unqualified discretion to cancel.

The Minister says, "Are we prepared to see the people who wish to flout the law and cheat the system get off scot free?" Certainly not. And the superintendent of motor vehicles is the person to exercise that discretion. But make sure you give it to him in completely unfettered form, section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

Mr. Wallace: Section 12 contains subsection 8(b) where the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council may extend the judge's term under subsection (1). This matter, I believe, has been raised in the House before and it's worthy of being raised again.

Fundamental to our system is total independence of the judiciary. Any legislation which interferes with that basic principle holds some very serious possible consequences for the impartiality of justice in this province.

We've had examples recently in another country south of the border where the attempts of government to corrupt the judiciary have occurred. One of the cases brought to my attention was the attempt by the President of the United States to offer the directorship of the FBI to the judge in charge of the Daniel Ellsberg case.

If a judge at the age of 65 depends on cabinet approval, should he wish to continue beyond the ago 65, it simply means this: as the age of 65 approaches for a judge he is in a most compromised situation should he be presiding over a case which has substantial political overtones.

[ Page 5068 ]

The situation apparently was changed in 1969 by an amendment to the Legislature. But in 1969 there was what I suppose one would call a "grandfather clause" which excluded judges at that time from the provisions of the amendment. But under this legislation as it reads today, all judges, regardless of the time of their appointment, will only continue beyond age 65 under two circumstances.

One would be to elect to become a supernumerary judge. And as I read the legislation, that means that they might conceivably not be called upon to function at all, or they could be called upon to function one day or one month or one year. But there are only the two options: to function in that rather uncertain, insecure position as a supernumerary judge; or at the pleasure of the cabinet to be appointed for an extended period of time.

The question which is central to this subsection 8 is the threat to the independence of the judiciary.

I think the kind of situation one could perhaps postulate is whether or not a judge would feel completely free to make impartial decisions when such cases as the Robert Sommers case might have been before the courts, or some occasion when government, any government, I'm not just talking about the NDP.... I wouldn't like to be a judge under these circumstances if I wished to continue beyond age 65. You're caught either way, because if you make decisions in the court which appear to favour the government, you could be looked upon as trying to ensure that you would get another five years of tenure. If, you make a decision against the government, then, of course, the judge's possibility of being appointed by the cabinet beyond age 6S is obviously less than likely, to say the least.

I'm not for a moment casting any accusations against the integrity of judges. I'm simply saying that under this legislation, no matter which way the decision could go in a case involving heavy political overtones, the judge's decision is likely to be questioned, if not openly, certainly in private. The fact is, this should not be necessary.

It seems to me that it may have many merits to retire judges at 6S. I'm not convinced myself that that's a good idea, because there are many eminent judges, I understand, in various parts of the world, in different countries, giving most outstanding service to the judicial system long after the age of 65. But if that is the decision of this government, at least it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should eliminate any possibility that extension of tenure for judges is at the pleasure of the cabinet of the government of the day. It just strikes totally at the basis of our system that the judges should be totally independent.

In that respect it seems to me that bringing judges under the government superannuation plan in this way really makes judges civil servants, whether you like that terminology or not.

This situation, under the bill as we now have it, brings two things that I would like to stress: One, I don't think this provision is right, but if government policy is to terminate judges' service at age 65, I do feel that there should be the retention of tenure for those judges who, prior to this policy being implemented, took tenure on the understanding that they would be judges until age 70.

The point has been raised to me in private by judges involved that many of them accept such a position later in life than many other professional people when they are making plans for retirement and their future income. They tell me, and I think it's a valid argument, that there are not too many senior civil servants that the government would choose to lop five years off their last highest earning years of employment.

As I say, while the judiciary is considered to be entirely independent, nevertheless, the fact that government controls their income, controls their pension plan and intimately involves their economic well-being, it seems to me that it is quite a reasonable argument that those judges who were appointed prior to the decision of this government to henceforward terminate appointments at age 65, those judges prior to 1969, should be given some consideration as to the understanding that existed on the date they accepted the appointment.

The purpose of the legislation originally was, of course, to phase out lay judges who are less well trained, perhaps, less experienced, and in general to upgrade the quality of justice in our courts. No one could quarrel with that very worthy goal, but in the process of trying to reach that worthy goal, the legislation has, in fact, penalized several professional men — judges who were holding office prior to 1969.

So with these considerations in mind, Mr. Chairman, I should just conclude by saying that I've discussed this bill with the Deputy Attorney-General, and I'm very pleased to know that the whole bill is being redrafted and that we will have another bill before the House in the spring session.

For that I feel that perhaps we don't have to belabour this point to the same degree, except to say that when this bill comes back in the spring, I think it would be very wrong if it includes the same kind of provision that a judge can have his term of office at age 65 extended by decision of cabinet. It seems to me either they quit at 65, or they're given the appropriate longer term of office at the time they accept the appointment.

It seems to me a very serious threat to the independence of the judiciary if, in fact, the judge is left wondering as he approaches age 65 that his extension of tenure might well depend on some of the decisions he makes which have far-reaching

[ Page 5069 ]

political implications.

With these comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper — to amend section 5, et cetera. The essential thrust of the amendment is in the last three lines, notwithstanding subsection (1). "A judge who is a full-time judge at the time of coming into force of this Act, shall continue to hold office until he attains the age of 70." I so move.

Hon. Mr. Hall: We're not prepared to accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman. The amendments to the Provincial Court Act, as explained on the left-hand side of the bill printing, would correct an error.

At the same time as that is being corrected, we are in consultation, as the Member well knows, with the judges' association. We're moving forward together on this. I am piloting this bill on behalf of the Attorney-General, and want-to do it in consultation with the judges.

As the Member knows, and as the next Member to speak knows, they've had the opportunity to discuss with the Deputy Attorney-General, as recently as this afternoon, what our programme is and what our policy is. I think we're going to stick with that course of action, Mr. Chairman, and we're not prepared to accept the amendment at this time.

Mr. Gardom: I'd just like to speak very shortly to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. First, I regret once again to have to pass the brickbat to my good friend the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), but here we have again an illustration of an extremely sloppy method of presentation of amendment.

For the interest and edification of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), all of the Members of this House — and the people in the. province,. for that matter — we don't even have the statute, which we are trying to amend, in this assembly. It's not even in here at all. The last amendment we find in the books which we are given to use is 1972, and we are amending one of 1974.

Once again I would make a plea to the government side, and specifically when dealing with the Statute Law Amendment Act, will you please print on the other side of the page the exact section that you wish to have amended, so all of the Members will be able to have a more intelligent and up-do-date appraisal of the matters which are before them.

Dealing with the topic specifically, I think there has been somewhat of a poverty of consultation until recently. I am glad to see that it has been overcome and that the department of the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General, are now having consultations with the judges on the point in question.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks enunciated by the former speaker, not necessarily with some of his references to the likelihood of judicial sway — he made his point quite clear — but I think we have some of the finest judges in Canada in our province. I can't see how any of them feel they would be under political compulsion from the point of view of attempting to hold the job. If there are such judges as those, they should seek their resignations as quickly as they possibly can.

But the issue that is here is a justifiable one. We have changed the parameter of the ballpark halfway through the game, and these people took their jobs as a letter states:

"These judges, you will appreciate, have oriented their whole lives in accordance with the tenure provisions at the time of their appointments, and were required to give up their private practices. They were, as well, prohibited from engaging in any type of business other than judicial."

There you have a very valid point insofar as judges who were appointed under the former legislation, Mr. Chairman. They consider this to be a very serious interference with these ground rules and understandings, as I've mentioned.

The issue is, essentially, that the statutes provide for this mandatory retirement at the age of 65, save and except for cause — that's totally satisfactory, not one of the judges complain about that — and save and except also for dispensations which may be granted either by the cabinet or chief judge.

I think the suggestion as presented in the amendment, which is one that was recommended by the judiciary themselves, is a valid one.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 27

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, when you report

[ Page 5070 ]

to the Speaker, could you ask leave that the division be recorded in the Journals?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): In respect to section 14, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Hon. Provincial Secretary could indicate whether or not either the Public Works Fair Employment Act was followed, or the provisions in this proposed amendment in granting the $75,000 contract to CKNW and the $30,000 contract to CJJC in connection with the hockey broadcasts. Both stations are non-unionized.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I don't think that the question of advertising is covered by the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

In view of the number of questions that have been asked from the other side of the House about this programme all I want to say simply, if it's not been said before, is that this government intends to do something about road safety and road accidents. One of the ways of doing it is advertising programmes. We're committed to that; we're going to do it in spite of all the criticism of the other side of the House.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing under the Attorney-General's name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Section 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take the time of the committee to go into very much detail, but I think it is important to point out that this is section 59(1)(f) of the Water Act. So, if it is approved by the committee in the House, it will read:

"...fixing the tolls and other charges, including charges for capital expenditures, payable to the improvement district, and the times of payment thereof, and providing for discounts or percentage additions to encourage prompt payment."

That's well and good, Mr. Chairman, but I hope that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — who apparently is not in the House at the moment — and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) will address themselves to the very serious problem which faces water districts.

It's all right to permit them to fix levies for capital expenditures, but they have no access, other than on the open market, to find those improvements which are being undertaken. They are, as you would realize, Mr. Chairman, extremely expensive. Even with interest rates dropping slightly, they still must compete with very large corporations.

There are some 300 or more water districts in the Province of British Columbia, and I don't pretend to have canvassed all of them. But I have talked to sufficient to realize that this is a problem which is faced by most water districts who have to improve, upgrade or expand their systems.

Individuals in both departments — Water Resources and Municipal Affairs — have indicated to me in conversation their awareness of the absence of any kind of financial assistance programme under the Water Act for these water districts. We have good programmes introduced by the former government and perpetuated by this government with respect to sewage treatment plants, the installation of sanitary sewers and related works, and recreational facilities. A number of capital programmes are assisted at the local levels by provincial funding, but not in water expansion or in the operation of water districts. They are in difficult circumstances.

I hope only, in rising on section 18, that the government, and particularly the two Ministers to whom I have referred, will address themselves to this between now and the spring session in 1975. Perhaps they will bring to this House legislation which will introduce financial assistance programmes.

Now that I have the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have to reiterate that members of his department and members of the Water Resources department have both admitted that this is a lack. It is a lack which has existed for quite some time and continues to exist. I think that on this side of the House we would welcome legislation which would make it possible for those water districts who, of necessity, must improve their systems to do so with some meaningful financial assistance — low-interest loans or whatever course of action might be taken by the provincial government.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I move the committee rise and

[ Page 5071 ]

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 178, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Chairman: The committee further reports that a number of divisions took place in the committee and asks leave that the divisions be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported.

Hon. Mr. Hall: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 178, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of this House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:18 p.m.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I just want to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Lieutenant-Governor is here now and we are just awaiting his arrival.

An Hon. Member: Introduction of bills!

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: That comes later.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): In the meantime, perhaps the Minister might like to answer some of those 27 questions put to him starting last January.

Mr. Speaker: You should have put a motion on the order paper.

Mr. Chabot: I could do that right now if you give me leave.

Interjections.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Put them in his Christmas stocking.

Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching. Would all Members please rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Deputy Clerk: Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2)

Timber Products Stabilization Act

Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2)

Clerk: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet.

Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

And that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. R.A. Williams tables answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:11 p.m.

[ Page 5072 ]

APPENDIX

178 The Hon. A.B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 178) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), to amend as follows:

By adding after section 10 the following as section 10A:

"S.B.C., 1973 (Second session), c. 137, s.2.

"10A. Section 2 of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Act is amended by striking out the words 'from its members their fishing-boats,' and substituting the words 'and refit fishing and fish-packing boats,'."

Section 15, line 1: By striking out the words "of the Real Estate Act is amended" and substituting the words "and (b) of the Real Estate Act is amended in both paragraphs".

178 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 178) intituled Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), to amend as follows:

Section 12(a): To further amend section 5 of the Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), as amended by section 12(a), by adding after the twelfth line thereof the following clause to subsection (8):

"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a judge who is a full-time judge at the time of coming into force of this Act shall continue to hold office until he attains the age of 70; and".

171 The Hon. R.A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) By deleting the definition of "board" and substituting the following:

"'board' means the Forest Products Board of British Columbia established under section 3;".

(b) By deleting the definition of "forest products" and substituting the following:

"'forest products' means logs and wood-chips;".

Section 2(2), lines 4 and 5: By deleting the words "void and unenforceable to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency." and substituting the words "varied to the extent necessary to be consistent with the terms of the order."

Section 2(3) line 11: By deleting the words "rail-car or truck load," and substituting the words "rail-car, truck, or barge load,".

Section 3(1), line 2: By deleting the words "British Columbia Forest Products Board," and substituting the words "Forest Products Board of British Columbia,".

Section 4(6), line 4: By inserting after the word "director" the words "who is not a member of the Legislative Assembly".

Section 4(7), line 2: By inserting after the word "payments" the words "for reasonable travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses".

Section 8(3)(b), lines 3 to 7: By deleting all the words after the words "authority for" and substituting the words "export under Part X of the Forest Act."

Section 12(1), line 8: By inserting after the words "section 10 or 11" the words "and this section".

Section 15(3), lines 3 and 4: By deleting the words "or at any meeting of the directors of the company,".

Section 20(2), line 2: By deleting the words "fiscal year of the Government" and substituting the word "period".

171 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4, subsection (7), line 2: To amend subsection (7) of section 4 by adding after the word "Act," in the second line thereof the following words: "and

[ Page 5073 ]

only in respect of reasonable travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by him in the discharge of his duties as a director,".

Section 16: To amend section 16 by adding after subsection (3) the following subsection:

"(4) Within 15 days after the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirtieth Parliament the Minister shall lay before the Legislative Assembly a preliminary report providing details of the amounts and conditions of all advances made under the authority of section 11 and of all requisitions made under the authority of section 20."

Section 19: To amend section 19 by striking out all the words after the word may" and substituting therefore the following words: ", for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act according to their intent, make such regulations and orders as are ancillary thereto and not inconsistent therewith."

171 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Title: To amend the title to read Log and Wood-chips Stabilization Act.

171 Mr. Gibson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 171) intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7, line 3: Change word "timber" to "forest products".

12 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With regard to the appointment of Alistair Crerar to a position with the Secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee —

1. At what rate or amount of remuneration were his services initially obtained?

2. What rate or amount of remuneration is he currently receiving?

3. For what length of time, if any, have his services been contractually secured?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. $33,000 per annum.

"2. $39,000 per annum, Deputy Minister status.

"3. No contract, at pleasure."

116 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the export of electrical power —

1. Has the Government revised or does it intend to revise its pricing policy on interruptible power exports to the United States?

2. Has the Government studied the possibility of withdrawing from the Northwest Power Pool?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. The B.C. Hydro pricing of interruptible power exports to the United States varies practically from day to day according to the costs of power, the availability of, and demands for, interruptible power.

"2. Because of the assistance which is provided by the Northwest Power Pool in emergencies and exchanges of power, it is not the intention of B.C., Hydro to withdraw from the Northwest Power Pool. As a recent example of the assistance provided by the Northwest Power Pool in an emergency, the Pool supplied B.C. Hydro on February 4, 1974, with about 750,000 kilowatts when both the two 500,000-volt transmission-lines were out of service for about 13 minutes."

[ Page 5074 ]

17 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the development of hydro facilities in northwest British Columbia —

1. How many possible power-generating sites have been studied and what is the location of each?

2. Of the sites mentioned in No. 1, how many have been selected (a) for closer examination and (b) for actual development?

3. For the sites named in the answer to No. 2 (b), what is the projected start and finish of each project?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. Preliminary studies have been carried out on three sites on the Iskut River, five sites on the Stikine River, one site on the Skeena River, Cutoff Mountain and the Kemano II development on the Nechako River, both by B.C. Hydro and Brinco.

"2. (a) Kemano II has been selected for closer examination of an environmental nature in order to determine the environmental implications of earlier Alcan plans and (b) none.

"3. Not applicable."

40 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the Interior stumpage formula put in force on October 15, 1973 —

1. How many complaints from members of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association have been received?

2. In how many instances have complaints from members of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association resulted in changes in stumpage rates?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. and 2. The B.C. Truck Loggers Association represents operators on the Coast, not the Interior. They made a submission on the basis that the Interior end use appraisal system would be introduced on the Coast. This was not done pending the results of the Pearse Task Force report, which subsequently recommended, in part, that Coast appraisals be based on a strengthened log market, rather than end use."

43 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the activities and responsibilities of the Pollution Control Branch during the 12 most recent months for which information is available —

1. What was (a) the average monthly employment, (b) the average monthly cost (including salaries), and (c) the average monthly number of vehicles operated?

2. How many (a) complaints and (b) applications were handled by the Branch?

3. How many (a) recommendations for changes in the statutes under which — the Branch operates; (b) recommendations for changes in the regulations under which the Branch operates; and (c) recommendations for changes in the size, structure, or functioning of the Branch were received by the Minister?

[ Page 5075 ]

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"For the period November 1, 1973, through October 31, 1974:

"1. (a) 176.25 persons, (b) average cost $222,995.26, and (c) 51 vehicles.

"2. (a) 471 complaints investigated and (b) 771 applications were resolved, resulting in 642 permits and amendments to permits, 17 refusals, and 117 withdrawals of applications due to cessation of discharge, exemptions under the Pollution Control Act, 1967, etc. In addition, 89 short-term approvals and 300 sewerage certificates were issued.

"3. There have been a number of verbal as well as written recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and organizational changes and, except for legislative changes, some of these recommendations have been effected; however, there is no adequate information available as to the number of such recommendations made."

48 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

1. What was the total cost incurred by B.C. Hydro for the assembly of the land contained within the Langley Industrial Park Site?

2. What was the purchase price of each parcel involved with the assembly of the land?

3. Have any parcels been offered for sale or lease?

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, what were the terms and conditions of each sale or lease?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. $1,757,425 (this is made up of purchases of land, as shown in No, 2, $1,146,425; property taxes, $253,000; development costs, $358,000).

"2.

LANGLEY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE — PURCHASES

[ Page 5076 ]

LANGLEY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE — PURCHASES — Continued

"3. Yes.

"4.

LANGLEY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE — SALES

"' 1. Option to purchase if building not completed within a given period. 2. Right of first refusal for subsequent sale. 3. Inclusion of B.C. Hydro rail for all shipments when possible."

[ Page 5077 ]

LANGLEY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE — SALES — Continued

"' 1. Option to purchase if building not completed within a given period. 2. Right of first refusal for subsequent sale. 3. Inclusion of B.C. Hydro rail for all shipments when possible."

61 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands. Forests. and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the Vancouver mill of Evans Products Ltd. —

1. Have any studies been conducted by or for the Provincial Government into the costs and employment benefits of keeping the mill open or the feasibility of the Government's operating it?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what were the findings or recommendations of these studies?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

" 1. No.

"2. Not applicable."

63 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the possible construction of a power-generating plant on the Pend-d'Oreille River —

1. Has a firm decision been reached to build the project?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how far from the existing Waneta Dam is the proposed location of the project?

3. Was a complete cost-benefit evaluation of the proposed project done and, if so, was the estimate of recreation and wildlife losses included in the projection of costs?

[ Page 5078 ]

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, what was the estimate of recreation and wildlife losses?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. Following a four-day public hearing in Trail, B.C., from July 23 to July 26, 1974, a Conditional Water Licence was granted by the Comptroller of Water Rights to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority on August 14, 1974.

"2. The proposed project on the Pend-d'Oreille River at Church Creek is located approximately 6 miles from the Waneta Dam at the upstream end of Waneta Reservoir.

"3. The generally accepted method of cost-benefit analysis for public hydroelectric projects is to assign a value for benefits equal to the cost of producing the power by the next cheapest undeveloped alternative source. Extensive comparative cost estimates by B.C. Hydro have shown that the Seven Mile Project would provide energy at a lower cost per kilowatt-hour than any other undeveloped source in the Province, and on this basis would have the highest benefit-cost ratio of all remaining undeveloped energy sources. Recreation and wildlife losses are not included in the comparative cost evaluations at this stage, because environmental impact studies for all promising power sites have not been carried out to the same degree of detail. B.C. Hydro's policy in the past has been to allow approximately 10 per cent of the project capital cost for 'contingencies' (in the case of the Seven Mile Project on the Pend-d'Oreille River the contingency allowance amounts to some $18,000,000) and to assume that recreation and wildlife mitigation costs would come from this figure.

"4. Recreation and wildlife losses have been estimated by Envirocon Ltd., Pearse Bowden Economic Consultants, in their report Environmental Impact Report, Seven Mile Project, dated October 1973. These specialists, retained by B.C. Hydro to identify and study the individual impacts of the proposed project and to suggest mitigation measures, are currently involved in further environmental studies in the area and have been in frequent consultation with the Department of Recreation and Conservation. The estimates for capitalized values of major recreation losses which would result from construction of the project are as follows:

"Accurate predictions of future effects are naturally difficult to make; for this reason, a probable high-low range is given. It should be noted that the, more conservative estimate of $444,000 is less than 0.3 per cent of the total estimated project cost and less than 3 per cent of the project contingency allowance. These figures indicate that the effect of the Pend-d'Oreille project on recreation and wildlife would be relatively minor."

65 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to the proposal to build a second dam on the Peace River —

1. Has B.C. Hydro received any response to its application for a permit to construct a dam approximately 14 miles downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam?

[ Page 5079 ]

2. Has the Provincial Government accepted Alberta's suggestion to form a task force comprising representatives from British Columbia, Alberta, and the Federal Government?

3. If the task force mentioned in No. 2 is to be established, when will it commence its deliberations and who will be the British Columbia representative on it?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"l. Federal Government approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act was applied for by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and has been obtained.

"2. The question of environmental effects downstream in Alberta was referred by the Governments of Alberta and British Columbia to a committee of Deputy Ministers from the two provinces. A task force was formed by this committee to review and report on the matter.

"3. The task force has reported that there will be no significant environmental change within the Province of Alberta. The Hon. W.J. Yurko, Minister of the Environment for Alberta, and myself as Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources for British Columbia, have accepted this conclusion. The British Columbia representatives on the task force were Mr. H.M. Hunt and Dr. R.J. Buchanan of the Water Resources Service."

95 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Premier, as President of the Council and Minister of Finance, the following questions:

1. Has the Provincial Government or any of the Crown corporations any advertising contracts with Dunsky Advertising Limited, Vancouver, B.C., and Montreal, Quebec, or have they transacted any other business using Dunsky Advertising Limited since September 15, 1972?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what is the description of the advertising contracts or business transactions involved, (b) what is the total cost of the work done since September 15, 1972, to February 1, 1974, and (c) what is the estimated cost of all work to be done for the Provincial Government or the Crown corporations by Dunsky Advertising Limited, up to March 31, 1974?

The Hon. David Barrett replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Advertising re parity bond issues in August 1973 and 1974 and (b) $14,380.40."

98 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With reference to natural gas sales by B.C. Hydro —

1. Was a net profit made on the sale of gas during the last reported financial year?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what was the amount of the profit?

3. Was a net loss made on the sale of gas during the last reported financial year?

4. What was the total cost of gas purchased during the last reported financial year?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"For year ended March 31, 1974:

"1. Yes.

[ Page 5080 ]

"2. $1,122,460.

"3. No.

"4. $41,534,682, of which $34,348,786 was for sale to the public."

109 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to timber sales in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts —

1. What was the average stumpage paid on timber sales in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts between December 1, 1972, and April 1, 1973?

2. What was the average stumpage paid on timber sales in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts between April 1, 1973, and February 6, 1974?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. and 2. Statistics as to average stumpage prices are not compiled on a day to-day or month-to-month basis. For the year 1973, the average stumpage prices paid on timber sales in the Coast portion of the Prince Rupert Forest District was $15.48 per cunit; and in the Interior portion of that district the average stumpage paid was $11.97 per cunit."

118 Mrs. Jordan asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

1. How many parks or recreational areas, if any, did B.C. Hydro construct in the years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973?

2. What is the size, location, and recreational purpose of each area?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"If we take the literal meaning of the words 'did B.C. Hydro construct,' the answer is:

"1. None.

"2. Not applicable.

"It was not B.C. Hydro's policy to 'construct' parks but rather to provide land for other agencies to do so. The dates refer to the commencement of the work or the grant of lease or conveyance as the case may be.

"A — Hydro Properties, Recreational Sites, 1969-73

"1969

"Coquitlam — A 12.32-acre portion on Coast Meridian Road and Gislason Avenue leased for trail riding.

"1971

"Coquitlam — A 4.82-acre portion on David Road leased by the District of Coquitlam for trail riding.

"Delta — A 6.42-acre portion on English Bluff Road leased by the Tsawwassen Tennis Club for tennis courts.

"Hudson Hope — An area containing a community centre and curling rink leased by the District of Hudson Hope.

"Surrey — A 4.63-acre archery range on 88th Avenue and 128th Street leased by the Lucky Bucks Archery Club.

[ Page 5081 ]

"1972

"Huntingdon — A 5.89-acre recreational area leased by the Huntingdon Community Association.

"Coquitlam — A 19-acre portion near Coast Meridian Road and Gislason Avenue leased for trail riding.

"Delta — A 0.29-acre play area on 92nd Avenue and Scott Road (120th Street) leased by the Corporation of Delta.

"Barriere — A 0.708-acre campsite leased in Barriere.

"Garibaldi — A 21.69-acre portion in the Garibaldi area leased for campsites.

"Buntzen Lake — Use of the transmission-line rights-of-way surrounding Buntzen Lake by Alpine Village Estates Ltd. for a trail-riding club.

"1973

"Coquitlam — A 1.30-acre portion near Coast Meridian Road and Gislason Avenue leased for a riding ring.

"Surrey — A 4.75-acre portion on 74th Avenue and Scott Road (120th Street) leased for pony riding.

"Lillooet — A 10-acre area at Seton Lake to be leased by the Cayoosh Creek Parks Board for campsites.

"Buntzen Lake — A 190-acre portion of the southeast area of Buntzen Lake used for boating, swimming, and hiking activities, supervised by Hydro.

"B — Hydro Properties, Recreational Sites, 1969-73, Columbia Project,

Arrow Reservoir

"1969

"Edgewood — Fifteen acres donated to community for park site. "1971

"Arrowhead — Approximately 20 acres leased for church camp.

"Syringa Creek — Five hundred acres conveyed to Parks Branch. Conveyance of final parcel expected in 1974.

"1972

"Columbia Village, Revelstoke — Fifteen acres conveyed to the City of Revelstoke for museum and grounds.

"Blanket Creek Park — Two hundred acres conveyed to Parks Branch "1973

"Edgewood and Shelter Bay — Boat-launching ramps.

"1974 (the following items will be completed in 1974)

"Revelstoke-Illecillewaet Park — Fifty acres leased to the Regional District for community recreation.

"McDonald Creek — Two hundred waterfront acres to be conveyed to the Parks Branch.

"West Demars — One hundred waterfront acres to be conveyed to the Parks Branch.

"Burton — Ten acres to be conveyed for community recreational use.

"Renata — Two hundred acres of waterfront property for transfer to the Parks Branch.

"C — Programmes of Clearing Undertaken by Hydro to Improve

Recreational Areas

"1969 and 1970

"Selective logging to remove diseased and over-mature timber in approximately 15 acres adjacent to Buntzen Reservoir.

[ Page 5082 ]

"1972

"Bear Creek Reservoir, Vancouver Island — Removal of snags and debris from 285 acres. Costs shared with B.C. Forest Service.

"Stave Lake — Ninety acres of drowned timber removed and snags cut to below water-level in 150 acres in conjunction with the B.C. Forest Service and Haney Correctional Institute. "1973

"Carpenter Lake — Approximately one-third of area cleared of stumps.

"McIvor, Loveland, and Fry Lakes — Removal of stumps and debris.

"Arrow Lakes — Removal of stumps at Syringa Creek, Edgewood, Fauquier, Nakusp, Revelstoke, and Halfway and St. Leon Creeks (3,318 acres).

"D — Contributions by Hydro to Cost of Work Done by Others for

Recreational Purposes

"1972

"$4,000 for development of a park on distribution-line right-of-way at Simon Fraser University.

"$2,500 for further work on Fauquier Golf Course."

160 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following question:

With respect to stumpage charged in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts: What was the average stumpage paid by Can-Cel on timber sales in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts from April 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"$13.98 per cunit."

161 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following question:

With respect to stumpage charged in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts: What was the average stumpage paid by Price-Skeena Co. Ltd. on timber sales in the Prince Rupert Coast and Prince Rupert Interior Forest Districts from April 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"Figures are not available for the April cut-off, but for the year 1973 the average was $10.08 per cunit."

165 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Price Skeena Forest Products, Terrace —

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 139,723 cunits.

"2. $1,407,990.47."

[ Page 5083 ]

166 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Eurocan (coastal operations at Kitimat) —

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 204,966 cunits.

"2. $1,328,155.60."

167 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Eurocan (interior operations at Ootsa Lake) —

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 272,163 cunits.

"2. $2,381,817.28."

168 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Canadian Cellulose's northwest operation at Terrace, Prince Rupert, Kitwanga, and Hazelton —

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 916,194 cunits.

"2. $4,906,824.63."

169 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Decker Lake Forest Products, Decker Lake-

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 14,469 cunits.

"2. $148,280.87."

170 Mr. Smith asked the Hon. the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources the following questions:

With respect to Rim Forest Products, Hazelton —

1. What was the total cunits of production by this company in 1973?

2. What was the total amount of stumpage and royalty paid to the Crown for the same period excluding write-offs for road construction?

[ Page 5084 ]

The Hon. R.A. Williams replied as follows:

"1. 50,236 cunits.

"2. $732,833."

239 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to Provincial agricultural credit activities —

1. How many applications for Government-guaranteed farm loans have been received?

2. How many such loans have been guaranteed?

3. What is the total dollar value of loans so far guaranteed?

The Hon. D.D. Stupich replied as follows:

"As of October 31, 1974:

"1. Thirty-one applications.

"2. Twenty-seven.

"3. $1,761,613."