CONTENTS

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 83). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 2427

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 84). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Hon.Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

On a point of order.

Mr. Chabot — 2429

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2430

Perpetuities Act (Bill 1). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2430

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

Amendment to section 22 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

Report stage — 2431

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2431

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2431

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

Amendments to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

On section 3 as amended

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2431

Report stage — 2432

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2432

Report stage — 2432

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Committee stage.

On section 1

Mr. Gardom — 2432

Report stage — 2433

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2433

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2433

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 48). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2433

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act (Bill 75). Committee stage.

On section 1

Mr. Gardom — 2434

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2434

Report stage — 2435

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2436

Division on second reading — 2441

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2442

Division on second reading — 2445

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2445

Division on second reading — 2447

Appendix — 2448

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some guests today. I notice, first of all, that the consul-general of The Netherlands is with us today, and I would ask the House to welcome him.

Sitting next to the consul-general is a very old, dear friend of mine who has been active in the trade union movement and the credit union movement for all of his years in British Columbia, John Anatooshkin.

And, Mr. Speaker, we have three other very important and distinguished guests: Mr. George S. May, chief executive officer and general manager of the B.C. Central Credit Union; Mr. Peter Podovinikoff, vice-president of the B.C. Central Credit Union; and Mr. Donald W. Bentley, director of the B.C. Central Credit Union.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the perceptiveness of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I'd ask the House to welcome these gentlemen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: You should raise that as a point of privilege immediately.

At any rate, Hon. Members, there is a matter of privilege I would ask your cooperation on.

Three things have happened yesterday and the day before that I think are urgently in need of some correction.

One thing that happened was that there was a bit of a scuffle in the Speaker's corridor last night at adjournment. This is what I am informed. Now whether that's true or not I don't know, but there was quite a press of people out there in the corridor and quite an exchange taking place.

On another occasion a person in the gallery was required to be removed. There was a considerable press of people in the corridor trying to find out what was going on when the servants of the House were trying to do their duty.

The third matter is that when the mace was accompanying the Speaker from the chamber, an insult was thrown at the Speaker. Usually when that happens somebody gets arrested, but I don't believe in those rather extreme remedies. Although, I notice that they do it in England, but I don't think we're quite that strict.

Nonetheless, I think it's important that all of us cooperate in trying to keep order and dignity in this assembly. In view of the hearty assent, I'm sure we will all try.

I think the Hon. Member for North Peace River has an urgency matter.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous leave of the House o move a motion under standing order 49 in our book of standing orders. The motion is: that this House suspend the provisions of 45A — Committee of Supply — for the remainder of this session and further authorize the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills to undertake immediately discussion and recommendations for rule changes with respect to debate in Committee of Supply, and to report their recommendations to this House.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, first of all, before taking it to the House, I should point out to the Hon. Member that there are two distinct propositions, and they would be out of order in the same motion. I would urge the Hon. Member to separate the propositions if he wishes to put them to the House because they don't permit the House to make a consensus where there are two separate propositions contained in one motion.

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared, Mr. Speaker, to put them in two separate motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want to take time to do that or...?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could go on with other business and, with leave of the House, the matter could be raised at the time of adjournment.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2428 ]

LABOUR EDUCATION CENTRE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act.

Bill 85 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A very short point of privilege dealing with a headline in....

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member could restrain himself for one minute till we finish with the bills.

MR. GARDOM: I'm under restraint, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 76, Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act.

Bill 86 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. A. B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge the committal of Bill 2, Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975, and that it be dropped from the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of privilege. Just in order that there not be any uncertainty in the minds of my children, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Or mine.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's your problem, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, I want to disclaim having thrown you out of the House, so far.

MR. GARDOM: But in order that there not be any uncertainty in their minds, I think it should be recorded that my long-suffering wife is still tolerating me, Mr. Speaker, and I continue to have house privileges, notwithstanding the cut line in this morning's Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure it was an error they would correct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw question 153 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, second time of asking today. I ask leave, under standing order 49, to move two motions without notice, the contents of which are as follows: motion (1) That this House suspend the provisions of 45A, Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session; the companion motion (2) That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills to undertake immediately discussion on recommendations for rule changes with respect to debate in Committee of Supply and report their recommendations to this House. Moved and seconded by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot.)

[ Page 2429 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the usual rules of the House are that a motion to change the rules is on two days' notice, placed on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: I have asked leave.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I point out that the Member has had the opportunity for the past almost four months.

MR. CHABOT: It is not four months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Almost four months.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the rule is that under standing order 49, where there is unanimous consent, without previous notice leave may be granted. We'll deal first with the first motion. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: On the second motion, shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: It will have to be on the order paper, by notice of motion.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly asks leave of the House to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It is the right of the Chairman to recognize the people he sees on the floor in the order.... I recognized the House Leader, and a motion has been made.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you a point of order to make?

MR J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Well, are you going to recognize me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have a point of order to make, please make it.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, first of all, is that there is a rotation system and you are supposed to recognize both sides of the House. There are two sides in this House. There's one to the left and the other to the right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have a responsibility as Chairman of this House to be fair and to be responsible.

MR. CHABOT: You haven't started to display that this morning. You are proceeding with the same kind of arrogance you displayed yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now my point is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you take your seat? Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You haven't been recognized. Will you please take your seat?

I recognized him and I have now asked him to take his seat.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), you haven't cited a rule I am in violation of that I can see.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The responsibility of the Chair is to recognize people as he sees them on the floor. I recognized the House Leader, and the House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has made a motion that I am prepared to place before the committee.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you, if you have a point of order, to please cite the standing rule that you raise this under.

MR. CHABOT: Common decency, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2430 ]

suggests that I have a right on behalf of the taxpayers of this province to debate $27 million of taxpayers' money. The people in the gallery today must be ashamed of what's taking place with democracy and the rights of individuals to speak in this House when I'm not allowed as an elected representative to speak on behalf of the people of this province. It's a disgrace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: I should have the right to speak,

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking you to take your seat in the way the rules of this House function.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you take your seat?

Interjection.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR, CHAIRMAN: You know the rules of this House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this point. I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that at this present time there has been placed on the order paper a motion — which will appear, as you know, in the proper time — that would give an opportunity for the discussion of these estimates. Therefore I consider that as far as I am concerned the move to go into public bills and orders is quite valid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 12

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record thy division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. It also reports that there was a division that should be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, public bills and orders.

Committee on Bill 1.

PERPETUITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 1; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the amendment, which is very plain, standing in my name on the order paper on page 19. (See appendix.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I don't find the amendment clear at all, and I implore the Attorney-General to give the committee an explanation of why he has made this change at this late time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As all Members are aware of the rule in Whitby and Mitchell, which prevented the passing on by devise or bequest the property of the decedent to an unborn widow, we are now making it plain that it isn't only in the case of land that we would strike down that kind of an invalid disposition, but we would allow the rule to apply to all property. That's the amendment; just very simple.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

[ Page 2431 ]

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name on page 19 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 1, Perpetuities Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 4.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 5.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

Amendments approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any particular objection to the direction which the Attorney-General is taking this particular statute, but I believe I must fairly say that we're now going so far as to unnecessarily complicate the administration of many estates. We are finding an example where more

[ Page 2432 ]

and more people have got to be served with more and more papers. The public trustee will have to have expanded facilities in order to receive and file all the documents that he is being obliged to receive under legislation of this kind.

I would hope that the Attorney-General could perhaps make some investigation through his department as to the true need for all these requirements. I know the Attorney-General has had instances come to his attention where beneficiaries of estates have not been advised that they are beneficiaries, but it seems to me that we're going far, far beyond what is required to provide relief in cases of this kind, particularly in cases where a beneficiary is an infant and that infant's mother or father is the executor living at home. Yet copies of these documents have got to go all over the place. I just happen to know from experience in this kind of practice of a multiplicity of documents. It's xerography gone wild in the estate business — that's what it is, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General should recognize it instead of sending out reams of documents to the public trustee. I think that some examination should be made as to the real need. I hope that a study could be conducted to make some assessment of the cost-value relationship to this procedure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member that the paperwork and complexity should be reduced to a minimum. But the reason for service on the public trustee in the case of a minor or a mentally-disordered person is for the protection of that person against an executor who might easily be able to ignore that minor's or other person's rights. If the papers are sent there in that kind of a case, as they should have to be under this section, if the public trustee saw, for example, that the minor was represented by a lawyer or that it was from a family that could clearly look after it, that would be the end of the matter. But it's only that unusual case which we would like to protect people against who are not able to protect their own rights, the very unusual case where the public trustee, having notice or a complaint, can look at the thing and then move in to protect this infant or mentally-disordered person.

So it's basically a filing, which I would think in 99 per cent of the cases, I suppose, is meaningless. It's that 100th case where the minor needs some special protection or someone who hasn't got the mental capacity needs some special protection, of which the public trustee wants to be apprised.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Administration Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 6.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 19 of orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 9.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. G.R. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm speaking to one point, and very quickly, Mr.

[ Page 2433 ]

Chairman. I don't think I'll be off topic, but if I am off topic I won't be off topic very much.

I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General has given any thought to making a similar suggestion under the Real Estate Act that we find under the Legal Professions Act, that the trust funds would incur interest for the use of, say legal aid, as we find under the Legal Professions Act. I wonder if he would care to comment upon that point, because there are millions and millions of dollars in trust in this province in any given period of time in the real estate field, and it is not possible for anyone to benefit from the interest on those trust funds. I think that if there were a similar provision made, the only people who would be deprived would be the banks, and it would be in the public interest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's a valuable suggestion, and one which has crossed my mind. The field of the notary public is in a similar situation.

We have the real estate inquiry under Dr. Gideon Rosenbluth, and I don't think that matter has been referred particularly to him. It's a little bit more of a legal matter, but I will see that he gets a copy of this exchange, after we have edited the grammar. It is Dr. Gideon Rosengluth.

I really think that this is something that is probably practical and should be done, because there is no question that in the case of the lawyers' trust funds, the amount of money from the interest on those trust funds has been of great benefit to us, not only in legal libraries but in the provision of legal aid and legal services.

It is a good suggestion.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 9, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Police Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

MORTGAGE BROKERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2434 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

STATUS OF MEN AND WOMEN AMENDMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General would agree to an adjournment of this bill. I notice there are around 30-odd statutes to consider and, speaking only for myself, I have not had an opportunity to go through them. It would be appreciated. Maybe if all the other Members are satisfied, my colleagues....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I accept the suggestion. There are some very odd statutes that are being amended in this bill.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make an observation if I can concerning this statute — I am not opposing the request today for the Hon. Minister to have her bill passed — but there's still an area of deficiency. I'm not too sure whether this will fall within the purview of the Minister or the Department of the Attorney-General, but at the present time we find that the civil service and the public are essentially being let down in this area where specific protection is required. If the Attorney-General could remain for a moment, it may be more in his department than the Minister's. I'd just like to give the Minister a specific illustration, if I can.

There's an elderly retired gentleman who owned a vacant lot which was his principal asset. It was his nest egg, and he sold it for $ 10,000. This gentleman is in his 80s, and it was the first time in his life that he had anything of value, but he didn't have it for too long. He saw one of these "get rich" advertisements in the newspaper and he decided to invest his bonanza, his nest egg, in gold and silver bullion.

He went to the office of these individuals, and saw a person there who identified himself as a "registered official salesman." Well, they hooked this old timer very quickly. He did not seek independent advice, and I feel that someone in the vending organization should have seen that he received just that. This was his one-time asset. It may not be huge to some, but it was enormous to him, and it was lost. He didn't receive any information about the possible pitfalls, no suggestion that he could obtain independent advice or help, and instead he was gulled into purchasing something that was completely intangible, and he was gulled into putting up his $10,000 all by this alleged registered official salesman.

Those words meant something to this old-timers, and we don't have the protection in British Columbia today to assist either your Ministry, Madam Minister, or the Attorney-General's, to cover these kinds of situations. This individual felt that this so-called registered official salesman at least possessed some kind of regulated qualification which at least required some kind of technical or governmental approval and expertise, but that wasn't the case at all because there are no means available today under existing statutes that these kinds of transactions can be registered.

I would suggest, recommend and plead to the Hon. Minister that some type of legislative safeguards come into being in this province, because here we have this old timer putting down his $10,000. He committed himself to owing another $35,000, which he didn't have, to purchase bullion without any guarantee and without even any assurance of a place of delivery for the thing he was proposing to buy, although there are provisions within this form of contract, which neither your Act nor the Securities Act assists, for forfeiture of the entire deposit under certain conditions. Talking about delivery, delivery might be in Transylvania or Monrovia, or what-have-you.

The protections under the Securities Act do not assist, and I gather that protections under the Fair Sales Practices Act do not assist, because there are

[ Page 2435 ]

existing in the Province of B.C. today these very high-toned types of newspaper sales pitches, and these very high-voltage sales programmes, but essentially these people are moving on a franchise. We don't have a franchises Act such as perhaps we could find in the statutes in Saskatchewan, or in Alberta, for that matter, and where we find powers of licensing, powers of bonding, and penalties for people who carry on these operations in contravention of those kinds of powers, I would seriously commend the Attorney-General and the Minister of Consumer Services to give thought to this suggestion, It's a very simple thing. There could be an amendment, Madam Minister, to your Act. Personally, I think it would be better for the Securities Act of the Attorney-General to cover these kinds of situations so these people would have to be bonded the same way as the security salesman is, or they would have to have their contract have a stipulated form, as per the contracts you have stipulated under your statute.

Today we're finding people being gulled, as this old gentleman was. The company in question is facing receivership. It's questionable as to whether the funds will be available. He has maintained an action for fraud and misrepresentation, but there's great difficulty of collection. You see, the representation was false. Had there been a bond, had this individual who was the salesman come within some degree of regulation, then your government would have been able to act more speedily and in the correct avenue to cure the situation.

I'd very much appreciate it if these two Ministers would give very serious thought to the suggestion that has been raised, and I would commend each of them to the prevailing statutes in the Province of Saskatchewan, which has a direct sellers Act which deals with licensing and bonding and gives purchasers a power to rescind in these situations. Alberta has the franchises Act. I don't know if a separate statute is required; I tend to think it is not. I think it could be adequately handled by an effective amendment to the statutes that are now part of the laws of the Province of British Columbia. This would be a relatively simple thing to do before the end of this session. If there's any way that I could assist, I'd be more than delighted to do so.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I appreciate the problem that the Hon. Member has raised. I am aware of the case and the particular company that is in receivership. However, in all fairness, I must point out that this legislation does not deal with that particular problem. This is one of the reasons we sought to change the name of the legislation, because there was quite a bit of confusion between this title and the title of the Trade Practices Act. That is why we are asking for a new title.

In the Trade Practices Act, we do have the right of a person who is a first franchisee. We have protection for them there that if it is quite obviously a device wherein they are conned or something, they can take action. The second time around, no. If they're not smart enough to catch on the first time, then they're not very smart. That is the only place we have in our legislation to deal with a franchise operation. I think the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and myself could probably decide where this problem more appropriately belongs and where it can be solved. I think the Securities Act may be the better vehicle inasmuch as it deals with financial matters. However, in discussions we can resolve this. But I would point out that this particular legislation deals in no way.... This deals with pyramid schemes, period.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I couldn't agree with you more, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if I can be out of order for a second, too, this is a problem that my colleague and I are concerned with. Where there's a sale of gold between individuals, that's something where you can sue — if you can sue. But where there is a trading in paper, an interest in gold, that comes very close to being a trading in a security. I know the superintendent of brokers has been concerned about this; he's been scanning the bullion ads in the newspapers to see if it's carried on. It may be that at some time we'd have to look at an amendment. Your remarks will be transmitted to the superintendent as well as having been for the information of my colleague and myself.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

[ Page 2436 ]

today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT,  1975

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria adjourned the debate.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No, it's the Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), but he's not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see. I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, in that event.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Bill 23, the Special Funds Appropriation Act, is a general purpose bill which gives some $70 million for a variety of programmes without any indication by way of line-by-line analysis as to how it's going to be spent. I shouldn't say "any indication;" it does break it down: $15 million to the community recreation fund, $20 million to the ferry capital expenditures funded $20 million to the summer programmes and $15 million to winter programmes. That's all.

We have had a history in this House of opposing bills which grant large sums of money for these funds. We feel that the government should budget correctly; we feel that the funds are a device for avoiding proper budgeting. This was the position of the former official opposition, the NDP, when it was opposing the funds set up by the former Premier. We then had the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) state — I think he said — "for the time being" or "for the moment." Anyway, he gave the impression it would be a temporary examination of the whole system; then he proceeded, of course, to increase certain funds. That happened back in 1973.

It appears clear now that they've abandoned their previous position and have decided that the funds for which they are not accountable until the public accounts look at them many, many months — perhaps years — later is the way to go in these various areas.

I can only reiterate the opposition we feel to such a manner of budgeting. If you're going to have $15 million for the Community Recreational Facilities Fund, let's make sure the money goes to the Minister responsible for recreation — I guess the Minister of Recreation and Conservation — let's make sure it comes out in his budget. Let's make sure that we see in the green book, in the line-by-line, how he intends to spend it, who will be hired under that, and where the money will go. Clearly, we don't have to have every expenditure of every dollar detailed. Clearly, we will set up certain funds for certain purposes to be spent in accordance with certain indications. But here we have no indication whatsoever, as you get in the budget.

Section B, $20 million for the ferry capital expenditures fund, worries me again. Last year we discussed this, Mr. Speaker. You'll recall distinctly that we had a discussion of $35 million, and we asked how much more it would cost; we asked what the total cost would be of those new ferries that were commissioned. We got nothing but evasiveness from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Sure, it's going to be spent on ferries, but what will the total cost of these ferries be? Is this an extra amount of money over the amount it was expected they would cost? Is it for new vehicles, new ships? None of this is in detail in this bill and therefore, whether one approves the ferries or not, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to approve of this type of bill which simply has us granting money and throwing it, essentially, into the hands of the government without the slightest control.

Is $20 million for summer programmes, $15 million for winter programmes? Again, it's not detailed at all. It's just down there as, what, $20 million for summer programmes and $15 million for winter programmes: that's all it says.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not here — he, presumably, would be talking about these programmes if it were in estimates and if his estimates were before the House. So we are going to vote against this bill in principle because the principle of funds which are unaccountable is wrong; the principle of budgeting money by way of special funds is wrong. The idea that we should be called upon to vote $70 million in a 19-line bill, as indicated by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), is just doubly wrong.

We will vote against it.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): No matter how you feel about special appropriation funds, and generally we have supported them in the past, we feel that this amount of $70 million is really extending the principle of special funds quite a long way beyond what the original intention was. We think there are some needs for special appropriations, but, generally speaking, those funds should be earmarked and should be covered in the budget.

One item which hasn't been discussed so far, I believe, is that these are not earning funds. I want you to notice that they are also back-dated to March 31, 1975. When these funds are voted I would like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), if he could, to tell us what the investment policy is for those funds until they are used. Does the money simply go, for example, into the drawer of John Mika for the department of Hon. Mr. Strachan? Does John

[ Page 2437 ]

Mika just put that money in his drawer until they require it, or is it invested? If so, where and what are the earnings on it? What are the earnings used for? Does the interest on that money accrue to that fund, or does it go back into general revenue, or where does it go?

You can't help but accept that one of the reasons, and perhaps the real reason, for a large amount of special funds is to prevent some accountability to the Legislature. And I would prefer to see, as I have said, that accountability shown and displayed. There's no way that we can really know what these funds are used for. True, we can look at public accounts a year or a year and a half later, and try to analyze where they went and what they were used for. But the capital expenditures, particularly for the ferry expenditures, really should be in the budget. There's really no good reason why the $30 million for the special employment programme should not be included under the Minister of Labour's estimate.

It's been mentioned earlier, and I reiterate, that the recreation fund, which all of us have supported, does not allow for operating costs. Some of the smaller areas are finding that they have done marvellous things with this fund, and I wouldn't want to quarrel with that issue, but they are running into operating expenses that perhaps they're not able to carry. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could look at that area in the future.

We will be supporting this bill, with those reservations, because we have accepted in principle that special funds appropriations are necessary.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it has been traditional for me over the past number of years to oppose this kind of legislation. But I'm going to vote for this bill, second reading, because I find that there has been a change which I can accept — that the funds which are established under this legislation are expended under specific legislation.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it might be appropriate to amend this bill in committee, and all Members have that right thereby to express any concerns that they have.

You know, it's different from what it was in the old days, Mr. Speaker, when we used to get funds set up to do things like beautify the power lines or to establish a monument to the dragonfly. (Laughter.)

In those days, Mr. Speaker, we did properly oppose this kind of funding because it was a very convenient way of taking surplus moneys and locking them away in the hands of the Minister of Finance to do with what he might wish, which was largely to finance the Crown corporations.

But here we have three specific amounts of money which are to be expended in three specific ways. Now we all appreciate what the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act has done for many municipalities and organizations in this province. I don't know of anybody who quarrels with that. There is a very careful examination made of all the submissions which come before the government, not by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) but by a staff committee composed of members from several departments.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty which the municipality in which I reside had in getting a grant convinces me of the care that is taken by that staff committee in assessing these various projects. It's a very careful expenditure of funds.

I've always wondered why we criticize so much the capitalizing of ferry projects in this particular way, because it has been traditional for as long as I've been in this House for there to be a lump sum amount in the estimates for ferry capital, just as there has always been a lump sum announced for highways construction. We can ask all kinds of questions about it of the Minister. So this is not really a change in any respect from what has been the former practice.

Lastly, on the matter of summer and winter employment programmes to be administered under legislation passed by this House, we are able to ask all the questions we want, and I don't think that anybody in this House really quarrels with the concept of making funds available for special employment needs. There are many students who have been able to continue their education because of this kind of legislation.

I think there is ample scope for debate. All we have to be certain about is that the moneys are directed to funds which are established under legislation and not directed to some funds just under a convenient name which is merely a disguise for another picket of the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on occasion when reasonableness infects this House, it makes it difficult to do the ritual tribal dance that is expected on the conclusion of a bill such as this.

Certainly I welcome the statements made by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who represents the independents in British Columbia. He's given what I think to be a frank, independent view of the situation as it stands now.

It is a correct assessment to say that in the past the special funds were used to be salted away for financing capital projects. No one is opposed to doing that. That's a good, cautious fiscal approach to

[ Page 2438 ]

management of money. What we were opposed to at that time was the fact that somehow, unfortunately, the impression was left that X-number of millions of dollars were going to be spent on protecting the dragonfly, when in actual fact only the interest off those earnings was protecting the dragonfly, so to speak.

But politics were being served. Politics left the impression and raised expectations throughout the communities of this province that beautification would actually take place, that other services announced for the special funds would actually go on to the limit of those funds. Regrettably that led to the growing cynicism in this province about accepting the word of the former administration about developing these programmes.

I think that the questions raised about the expenditures are valid. The Member points out that there is opportunity to discuss these expenditures.

I want to, first of all, dwell on the fact that there is a surplus. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I know that the official opposition is disappointed that it does exist, because the official opposition has been making some of the wildest statements about our financial situation that I find are absolutely incomprehensible in terms of the accounts available through the same staff in the Department of Finance that existed under the former government. To go around this province deliberately attempting to leave the impression that all is not well with the provincial finances is patently false.

I am shocked and disappointed, in the heat of political battle, that anyone would make those statements, which are calculated for political gain but which may have the damaging effect on the belief of people that somehow the finances of this province are not in good shape. I regret that.

I want to point out that when the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was the fiscal critic in the House for the official opposition when we were in that role, he never once attacked the basis of the fiscal stability of this province. He vigorously opposed legislation that philosophically we didn't agree with or in principle we didn't agree with, but at no time did our spokesman ever attack the fiscal base of this province. At no time did the Hon. Robert Strachan, in that role, run around this province trying deliberately to leave the impression that this province was in fiscal problems.

Even when we attacked the Columbia River, we always added the caveat — if I may, because I've been talking to lawyers — that the province was wealthy enough to handle even that blunder. And we always said that in our statements. But we never tried to spread doom and gloom about the great potential and future of this province, in spite of politicians and in spite of political parties.

Now we are witnessing, in this debate for the expenditure of some $70 million additional, an almost plaintive acceptance by the opposition that this is good, but a little bit disappointed, in the words from the Member for Victoria "that it's so much."

Now what kind of quixotic, philosophical position allows a Member to say, on the one hand, to the public that they're fiscally irresponsible, this new government, but then to come into this House and find out that, my goodness, the surplus funds are even greater than we used to have? In effect, Mr. Member, that's what you were pointing out.

MR. MORRISON: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know, Mr. Member, that you didn't say that, but your party and your spokesman have been running around this province deliberately attempting to create the atmosphere that all is not well fiscally in British Columbia. Yet the evidence here — that they say they're going to vote for — is that there was $70 million left over in last year's budget in spite of the overruns in social welfare, in spite of the overruns in ferries, in spite of the overruns in other departments. There was still $70 million left over. And are we taking the $70 million and shoving it into little pet capital projects under the guise that the title of the funds that would come out would be what the money was spent on? No.

The independent Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has made that point, and made it adequately.

So you see, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of the official opposition, known as the Social Debit Party — I mean, Social Credit Party. On the one hand, to take the position publicly that we're in fiscal trouble, and on the other hand to be forced here today — as they will be, and I assure you they will be — to stand up and place their name on record as to how they voted on, what, for goodness sake? — on how they voted on $70 million surplus money after we spent the welfare programmes. After we gave Mincome, Pharmacare, day care — programmes they never allowed, after we provided new ambulance services, after we provided extended services throughout this province, their name will go on the record as endorsing the further expenditure of $70 million surplus that came about because of good management by this government.

I wish sometimes that television were available so the people of this province could see how difficult it is for the official opposition to say one thing outside and another thing inside.

Along with this $70 million surplus, I'd like to contrast the delicate financial situation that exists in this country. The federal Minister of Finance is attempting to put together a budget for the end of May to deal with the fiscal crisis as he sees it in this

[ Page 2439 ]

country; and, Lord knows, there is a fiscal crisis in North America. But let us look at our position in that particular crisis, and let us examine what traditional financing has done for other provinces.

First of all, let us take our neighbouring province, the Province of Alberta. They have established a heritage fund. They are an administration that is in a surplus position. Why are they in a surplus position? They are in a surplus position because, Sir, they have reaped new profits from oil and gas in that province. I submit to you that had they adopted the policies of our government they'd have half again as much money. They have allowed the private oil companies to disappear with huge profits off oil and gas that actually belong to the Canadian people. But, nonetheless, even though those oil companies and gas companies have made huge profits, they still have a surplus in Alberta. A Conservative government. Why is it they have a surplus? — oil and gas.

Let us move now to Ontario — only figuratively, because I don't want to punish anybody who lives in this beautiful province with the idea that we might stay there. But let us move, figuratively, to Ontario.

Last year, under a conservative government that in many ways resembles Social Credit philosophy — that is, put the screws on the poor, don't help the small businessmen, fight the trade unions, all the symptoms of Social Credit under the Conservative label — in that province they had an operating deficit, not a capital deficit, of how much? A deficit of $1.6 billion overrun — $1.6 billion in one year in Ontario! Have you ever seen a front-page headline in the Vancouver Sun, the Province, the Victoria Daily Colonist, Southam News in British Columbia, reading "$1,600,000,000 Deficit in Ontario" and contrasting British Columbia's $70,000,000 surplus? Has anyone seen that headline?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap) No way.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Is the press being mean to you, Dave?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of the press being mean; the press is capitalist-oriented, I hate to say that. And having said that, that may appear in the headlines, but I want to point out that even though we spent $100 million more for people in Mincome, Pharmacare, day care, even though we spent more money for ambulance services, supplements for education, more money on recreation and conservation, we have $70 million overall surplus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do the weekly papers stress that point? "Barrett and the NDP spent all that money and, gosh darn it all, they even had 70 million bucks left over."

Now the question is also raised about cash in the bank when we came into office, and that is being used as part of the argument that somehow the government is using money that was already there. So we've had to tell our civil servants to tell the people the way it was. What was it? When we came to office there was $98 million in the bank and that was signed by the former Minister of Finance (W.A.C. Bennett) — $98 million cash in the bank and $255 million out in instant debt known as parity bonds.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, now we're going to come to this. In parity bonds there was $255 million. That's just like printing money and a good investment. Anybody who buys a parity bond has a good investment and is backed by the people of this province. But there was $255 million out with $98 million in the bank. What is the situation today after we've spent all that money on these programmes, after we've got $70 million surplus? What is the situation today? Well, it is a fact, Mr. Member and all the Members of this House and all the people of this province, that I want to report that the people of this province have reduced the parity bond debt from $250 million down to $160 million! And by absorbing that and then raising the cash — and I know this part hurts Social Credit, so I want to say it softly, because Social Credit will have to go around and admit this to everybody in the province — after having the $70 million surplus, after reducing the parity bond debt by close to $100 million, instead of $98 million cash in the bank, we've got $157 million in the bank. We have $157 million cash, and you know, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hear them chattering, and I hear them nervous, and I hear them embarrassed. On top of that — I hate to say this publicly, too, considering my political philosophy — Moody's rating service in New York, who does not look at political shades but in balance sheets, says that this little old socialist government has a double A rating — one of the highest outside of all the Americas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ontario, too. Ontario got a triple A because they're hooked into more borrowing that we are. I want to say....

MR. GIBSON: I hear they have a big deficit.

[ Page 2440 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure they have a big deficit. But look at how much borrowing they are doing. I want to tell you that when I go down to New York — this little kid born in British Columbia and raised in the East End of Vancouver, who went to high school looking for 20 cents to buy fish and chips — now there's a line-up of those conservative bankers saying: "Please, sir, can we do business with you?"

Imagine what would happen if I went to the NDP convention and they found that I was Wall Street's darling. (Laughter.) Oh, what fate has done! The twist of irony! There it is. And who's done it? Not me! It's every single one of my colleagues in the cabinet and the backbenchers, who represent the ordinary people of this province by saying: "No more rip-offs. No more giveaways. Sell our resources at a fair price and get a fair return for the people of British Columbia."

I don't want to go around telling this to the people of British Columbia; that's why I speak this way in this House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly — a $70 million surplus — I have to tell you how we got it. (Laughter.) I have to tell you who got it, because if there's ever any question of me, I don't have the option of running home to daddy and crying. (Laughter.)

What I'm saying is, Mr. Speaker....

MR. MORRISON: What about the extra taxes to the municipalities?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the extra taxes. "What about the extra taxes," it the cry from the opposition Member. Yes, we have put extra taxes on — guess who? The multinational corporations. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with taxing the multinational corporations? Every citizen I meet on the street...they come up to me, nudge me and say: "Go to it, Dave!" (Laughter.) They don't have much sympathy for those huge, monstrous corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about small businesses?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member wants to be told about the small-business tax. He raised it, not me. We are the only administration in all of Canada that has lowered the capital corporation tax on small businesses. I would have never thought that the opposition would expose themselves to finding out what was in the budget. Now they have to go around telling the small businessman: "Yes, it's true. Those socialists have lowered your taxes." Don't let my party know about it because they'll find out that (a) I'm the darling of Wall Street; (b) I'm lowering taxes for small businessmen. That will ruin the philosophical image that that group is deliberately trying to spread around this government. There it is.

These speeches are not intended to embellish, Mr. Speaker; they are only dealing with facts as they are.

Now we shall deal with some of the more specific criticisms raised, because I think it's important to deal with them. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), because now he is an Independent, is able to cut the terrible party bond he had on him which said he must vote against this kind of bill. His independence has given him a freedom away from his party constrictions to stand up and announce that he's going to vote for this bill. I don't want anybody to suspect that the change of position is paving the road to a change of party because he said that we were far more honest than the former administration — we're spending all the money. So it would be difficult for him, on this bridge, to go over to Social Credit, let alone the problems of the nomination. (Laughter.)

So I want to say to my friend, the learned judge, and to others in this House who have brought up these problems, let us examine where the money is. The money is in general revenue. It should be there in general revenue, Mr. Member for Victoria, receiving valid interest rates on a bid basis. The bids are open to all. The former government would not deal with certain banks. We don't dislike certain banks, and play politics that way, We dislike them all, so we let them all compete for the money. We're fair about it; we don't pick on any one bank — they're all in there. We've even allowed the credit unions to have some money. The former government would never do that. The former government wouldn't put a nickel in with the credit unions. Why? They were B.C.-based, with B.C. people.

Having answered that question, we go on to the next question: the community resource development fund. As a social worker and as an MLA representing a growing constituency, I went around this province and saw community after community after community that was starved for recreational facilities — the ability to recreate, to enjoy leisure time, to share with fellows in your own community the opportunity of growing, to read poetry, to become a part-time thespian, as some Liberals would enjoy doing. (Laughter.) No political party has more experience in acting than the Liberals — and they should hone it, I think, to a higher degree, especially as they walk the fence.

The other party, they don't need those skills — they're on the plank.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we went around this province and I met our candidates who fought for their local areas, they said to me: "Dave, you know one thing we've got to do? We've got to

[ Page 2441 ]

stabilize these communities. We've got to give people a centre for social focus in these communities."

So we said: "Okay, our party policy would be that we pay one-third of the capital costs of community resource recreational development."

We spent over $40 million, all in new programmes — cash — and we still have a surplus. On top of that...you want to know the figures? We have helped over 200 separate communities in this province through this fund.

We have helped Liberals; we have helped Conservatives; we have helped Social Credit, and, God knows, they need help. We have helped them all to develop, within their own interests, the community which they represent here in this House. Yes, in the city of Fort St. John, where I was humbly asked to humbly participate in a humble opening of a humble facility without their humble MLA....

MR. GARDOM: Humblebug!

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Humblebug," says the Member.

Mr. Judge, through you, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) enjoy it. It's later than you think. (Laughter.)

I want to say that it was a great experience to stand up there cutting a ribbon....

MR. GIBSON: Jimmy Gorst does that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now there goes that poor fellow with the 57-vote majority. Surely we can do something in North Vancouver to help you. Surely you can come and make an application, and you'll be at the ribbon-cutting too.

There is a problem, however, raised by the Members about financing staff. No question about it. Operating costs for recreational centres should not be looked upon lightly. Those people who work in recreational facilities have an onerous task, and many times their job is misinterpreted as being involved in leisure-time activities as if they were part of the leisure time.

I tell you, people who have some of the greatest occupational stress are those who work in a leisure-time field. They personally lose the highly prized hours of the evenings and the weekends because the nature of their employment and/or their profession takes them away from their families at those periods of time. We recognize that as a severe problem. We also recognize that there is a shortage of skilled staff in that area.

As a consequence of the approaches made to me by the backbenchers and other people, we have said, "all right, we must find ways of getting more money into the hands of the communities." So I announced the revenue-sharing from natural gas resources. Every little town, village, hamlet and city received the basic $25,000 cash grant, first time ever, plus other grants under the natural gas money. I have yet to hear an official opposition Member get up — after all the criticisms, all the attacks — saying: "Mr. Premier, regardless of party, on behalf of all British Columbians I want to thank you for getting that good deal out of Ottawa on our natural gas." They never said it.

Now I am too humble to ask for praise, but I do think once in a while that it would be worthwhile, for their own good image, to swallow and say: "We had thought that we wouldn't get anything, but our Premier did come back from Ottawa successfully, and got an increase in the gas price, and was able to help the communities in this way." Because that is a fact.

We also established the petroleum corporation, which they voted against, which also contributed to this surplus. That is a fact.

I don't have enough time, Mr. Speaker, to give the fulsome praise that is due every single cabinet Minister and every single backbencher of this government who has had the courage and the conviction to back legislation like the petroleum corporation, which has given us this surplus, as it should be, out of the revenue of our natural resources, which belongs to the people of British Columbia — not only to the multinational corporations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say with pride — yes, pride — that we do have a $70 million surplus and it will be spent for community facilities, for ferries, and, more than anything else, will be spent with pride on a brand new programme that will spend money for jobs for students so that they can finance their higher education here in this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion, with a sense of pride, humility and desire to do more, that I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 5

[ Page 2442 ]

Bill 23, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill. 25, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER
AUTHORITY (1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to increase the borrowing authorization of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $2.25 billion to $3 billion. The increased amount is needed to carry out the authority's commitment under the Columbia River Treaty for construction of new dams to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for power and for the authority's day-to-day capital expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill we will be presenting an amendment in committee, but I would like to remind the Premier that last year when he was discussing a similar bill he made some pledges in this House as to the loans, and those pledges were not kept. He has had some secret borrowings from undisclosed sources. He has not yet told the House where those loans came from. He had made selected disclosure on other deals; and we feel that it's important that this House be given all the facts, and that the public know all the facts. The real issue of this bill, again, is accountability.

Under the NDP, B.C. Hydro for the first time in history is sliding into a deficit position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who signed the Columbia River treaty?

MR. MORRISON: But we will be, as I said, proposing amendments in committee stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if we had more in the way of information on this, we might be a little happier with this particular bill. We're now getting to that period of the session where hundreds of millions of dollars come up in bills, one after another, and the bills get shorter and shorter as we go along. The last bill took 19 lines for $70 million; this takes only three lines to go up $750 million. I had hoped that the Premier would be providing a great deal in the way of background material or extra information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In committee. You will get that in committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has offered now, and I thank him for it, to provide that in committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But we feel that without better publicity on exactly how the money is to be spent, we will oppose this bill in principle.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't have thought the Premier would bring a bill of this kind before the House without first having launched the inquiry which the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) promised into the affairs of the B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's coming.

MR. McGEER: The Premier and the Minister both hinted darkly of wrongdoing in B.C. Hydro, despite allegations by former officers of that Crown corporation that the Minister in fact was being less than truthful, less than truthful with the statements he made, having privileges of House immunity. It's been my contention that until that Minister is cleared, he should not serve as a director of the Crown corporation and could not possibly have the confidence of the officers of that particular institution. I don't think it appropriate, either, for there to be increased borrowing on the part of the B.C. Hydro until the matter of the Columbia River treaty is thoroughly aired.

We all know that during the time the negotiations were underway and in the immediate post-negotiation period, the financial arrangements were kept a secret — that is, the details of them — from the Legislature and from the public. The affairs of that corporation are still in effect hidden from view. They are hidden from view because the present government, like the previous government, operates to see that they remain hidden from view. There's not public meeting whereby the citizens of British Columbia can go and ask questions. It is true that at least one officer of the corporation now appears before the public accounts committee once each year, although they haven't appeared this particular year, but I really don't consider that as more than minimal progress.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you like the way the Socreds did it?

MR. McGEER: I don't like the way you're doing it either, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not going to join them? Tell us, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I might join you.

[ Page 2443 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I just want to prove that you can say shocking things on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker. But I couldn't contemplate anything like that unless the Premier were to make a clean breast of the way he's run the finances of this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've already committed suicide.

MR. McGEER: And we're far from that in the way this Crown corporation is being managed. Of course, there is apparently a lot under the carpet in the B.C. Railway and the B.C. Hydro. The government is choosing to give people a little peek under the carpet when it suits their fancy, but when it doesn't suit their fancy they clam the carpet down. Don't they?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, they do.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He's got a bad back — go easy on him....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you fellows still talking to each other?

MR. McGEER: So, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature, particularly the backbenchers — one of them showed a little spunk for just a few minutes before it flickered out last night — shouldn't be continuing to support a government in practices which hide accountability of Crown corporations. Of course, the government is failing to live up to its promises in having an investigation of the operation of the B.C. Hydro. I am personally convinced that this commission will never come to pass and that the government is doing its very best to forget about it and bury it and hoping that we won't continue to remind them of the promises that they made under pressure.

We are going to continue to do that, and we are going to continue to demand that the government take some action with respect to renegotiation of the Columbia River treaty. It's all very well to blame the previous government for the losses on the Columbia River treaty compared with what the people expected and were promised. But that's no excuse for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon R.A. Williams) to be on a committee advisory to the permanent engineering board, a committee of Ministers that could instruct the board to obtain the data necessary for a firm case to get payments under the Columbia River treaty increased. Then we find that the Minister, in all the time he's been in office and all the statements the Premier has made about what a dreadful job Social Credit did and the former

Liberal government, this key committee has never even met — never even met, Mr. Speaker. Despite all the criticism, all the suggestion that others were to blame, the government totally neglects its responsibilities now. It is attempting to push it off on somebody in the past, failing to live up to its responsibilities now and failing to reveal, as it should, all the financial nooks and crannies of the Crown corporation. I understand in two weeks' time or so we are going to have some of the scandals of the B.C. Railway laid before us. We will want to go into that thoroughly. But whatever those turn out to be, the basic fault will be lack of scrutiny by the opposition and the public. I say without equivocation that that lack of scrutiny applies under the present government to exactly the same degree. Were it going on today in any Crown corporation, the only way it would be found out would be by some future government revealing the mess of a previous government. You have to have open meetings of shareholders, you have to have full disclosure of financial operations, and you have to let Crown corporation officials know that they are going to be held accountable both to the public and to the public's elected representatives.

Above all, Mr. Speaker, you've got to get politicians off the boards of directors. If a crown corporation is to operate under sound technical and financial practices, it cannot do so with the kind of interference which obviously is taking place in corporations such as ICBC. The Hydro needs to have stronger directors than the sleeping Minister and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He's awake — I couldn't quite see him from the back; it's a difficult place to speak from.

In any event, he's awake. I want to tell you that I'm looking forward to new directors of B.C. Hydro, people who are noted for other things than what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is famous for, people with some competency in the Hydro field and some competency in the business field. I'm looking forward to replacement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources by another director who won't consider it appropriate to release false information about committees of the Crown corporation of which he is a director.

If these kinds of things were done and more accountability of the corporation were available, then of course I would be the strongest supporter of increased borrowing powers. But under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to vote against this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the comments made by all the Members. I find a difficulty in responding to the Member for Point

[ Page 2444 ]

Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he uses the word "we." I know he's speaking for himself, but after the previous vote he can't speak for the two independents so I would suggest that it's better to address yourself as, "I will be doing this; I will be doing that," unless it is a Freudian slip of future leadership ambitions.

To deal with the substance of the comments, I'd like to point out that it is true that regardless of what administration was in office, we would have to continue the obligations of the Columbia River treaty. The Member is absolutely correct, as he assessed in the past and I assume he's assessing in a softer criticism today that the Columbia River treaty was a disaster, financially and ecologically. I am grieved that the Member is burdened with this particular position because I know how sensitive he is about the examination of the Columbia River treaty, which will be forthcoming as promised by the government, and how that examination will affect his own future political decisions. I know that it would be extremely difficult if that committee were to hear evidence that substantiated some of the claims that he's made against the Columbia River treaty himself. Why, even Social Credit Members have accused him of being extravagant in his negative criticisms of the Columbia River treaty. Of course, if those are substantiated in fact, it will impair his limited choice of political future in terms of association (a) with a party, or (b) with Members who had anything to do with that treaty. I know that the impetus for the Member's concern and the desire for the Member to have this information is essentially to condition his own honest evaluation of where he wants to go politically. If his accusations against Columbia River, as I think, are correct, how could he ever join Social Credit? Therefore we will do everything we can to help him in this choice.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We will prove that the Columbia River treaty was a financial disaster, as the Member has said time and time again. We will prove that we have to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up the mess left by Social Credit signing the Columbia River treaty. We will prove to the Member's satisfaction, even though he may have felt justified in leaving the Liberal Party, there is no way he could join Social Credit that left future generations with this awesome burden of hundreds of millions of dollars debt because of a stupid decision on the Columbia River treaty.

I know that when that Member decides to make his decision politically for his future in representing the people from his constituency he will take into account not only his own past statements on the Columbia River treaty but the record of Social Credit and say: "Even though I'm no longer a Liberal I can't join that there gang." Or will he? Or is he wily?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Willy-nilly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Time will tell. Tell me, though you, Mr. Speaker, could the good doctor explain what causes blood to rush to the head and turn the face red? (Laughter.) Oh, Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult thing to perceive. Nonetheless, we will go ahead with our pledge and we will have the inquiry.

Now we will deal with the record of the former administration. At no time was anyone allowed into the public accounts committee; at no time was anyone allowed from Hydro to come into public accounts.

We have, in defence of freedom, nominated one of the outstanding members of the Social Credit Party to be chairman of that public accounts committee, and, despite what the Leader of the Opposition said about the change of rules, we will not deny the opposition the freedom to go to public accounts the way Social Credit did before.

I am sure that on his freedom crusade he is saying what a wonderful thing it is that we have a chairman of the public accounts committee who is a Socred. It was never allowed before. I'm sure he's giving that account of how Hydro comes to the public accounts committee to defend freedom. It was never permitted under Social Credit. I am sure he's telling the people that, just as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has announced it today, saying gently: "Well, there has been a little change."

Yes, there has been a little change. Now we can send someone to public accounts. A little change? A little change? It's a significant, dramatic change from the fact that the former government hid everything. They've got their nerve to talk about freedom. The bellicose, histrionic, wild statements about freedom...when they don't go around telling everybody: "Yes, it's true, the NDP named one of our Members chairman of public accounts." Have they forgotten or do they not want to tell the truth that there's access now to public accounts for the Crown corporations that was never allowed in Social Credit days? Never, never, never!

Why do I have to be so political? Why is it necessary for me to remind people of the history of these developments? Because some Members of this House are going around this province deliberately trying to leave the impression that things have changed for the worse. It's true, if you put it in their terms: if we were allowed to look through public accounts of the Crown corporations, it would have been for the worse.

You talk about BCR. That's the subject of another bill, Mr. Member. I have no further comment to make about that, but it's a grievous matter, and I want to

[ Page 2445 ]

get back to order by saying that that will be discussed in another bill.

But Social Credit has to be held accountable. Social Credit must be made to be responsible for the fact that they signed the Columbia River treaty, that they blew the deal and that they have burdened our children and our children's children with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt because they sold out to the Americans.

And don't blame the Americans. I don't blame them one bit. If I could find a fat sucker to skin the way they did with the former government, I'd do the same thing. The government was a great, big slothful, fat sucker waiting to be skinned, the Social Credit government, sitting up here in the boondocks, waiting for the Yankee sharpies to come up here and skin them; and they didn't even give them anesthetic. They just peeled it off strip by strip — $100 million a strip.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Progress at any cost.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Progress at any cost," says the Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not a dime without debate, is the slogan; $600 million without thinking is the answer.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whew! When I think of the things I could say about the former government, it makes me blanch in fear of having to discuss their record in front of the people so that the people will really know what they did. I remember at the demise of their government that they used to even have to be protected just to walk across the street. $600 million!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then the Member's calling about order. Listen to who's talking about order.

Anyway, I want to assure that Member that I am very deeply concerned about all the aspects that go into your political future, and all the considerations you have to make. You have chosen to leave a fine party with a great tradition, and you're casting about looking at our party, the Conservatives and Social Credit. I can't speak for our party. It's a democratic party, and you can't make a deal with me to join. You have to go in front of the executive. But in terms of what you're going to do, related to Hydro, you may want to get back into the Liberal Party. You'll have to crawl to do that.

But in terms of the Socreds, let it be said that they got us into this mess with the Columbia River treaty. We have to clean up the mess. We have to borrow the money to clean up the mess. That's what this bill's all about.

I regret it, Mr. Speaker, but I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 11

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

Bill 25, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1964) Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 28.

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF BRITISH

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Assessment Authority Act of British Columbia: the Act now provides financial support for the authority by capital grant of $1.5 million each year from the province for five years, an operating grant from the province of one-tenth of one mill on all taxable and tax-exempt property in the province, and tax on all taxable property in the province sufficient to cover operating expenses after payments from the province.

A review of these financial arrangements shows the inconsistency of the inclusion of tax-exempt property in the base of the continuing financing obligations only of the province.

Since property taxes are applied solely against taxable property, so should the cost of assessing be

[ Page 2446 ]

applied only against taxable property.

This bill, therefore, deletes the tax-exempt property from the calculation for the province's payment of assessment.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a cop-out on the part of the present government with respect to what was intended when a reform in assessments was contemplated by the government, and then referred finally to what is supposedly an independent authority. While it is a very brief bill, with one section only, section 1 reads: "Section 16(l)(b) of the Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act is amended by striking out the words 'and tax-exempt.' "

It is going to have a very significant effect on the results that are produced for the assessment authority in carrying out its function on behalf of municipalities and other jurisdictions in British Columbia.

The assessment authority was supposedly an independent authority when it was established. It has been given the task of appraising all property in the province, whether taxable or non-taxable.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to emphasize that that was clearly understood at the time that the assessment authority was set up. The deletion of this levy of one-tenth of I mill on the total assessed value of all tax-exempt property does not, as far as we can determine, relieve the assessment authority and its appraisers of the cost of appraising all government lands and buildings or any land and improvements held in the name of various provincial Crown corporations. That physical appraisal, the actual review of the lands and buildings to which I have referred, is a considerable task and will have to be done in any event.

However, taxable property, homes, farms, commercial premises, industries in the private sector will find that the cost of this appraisal and the compilation of any assessment roll on untaxable land and improvements will inevitably, as a result of this so-called minor amendment, shift the cost from the Crown to individuals and businesses, As I said earlier, it is another cop-out by the government, and it seriously impairs the principle of all property regardless of ownership, private or Crown, contributing to the cost of the appraisal of the assessment process.

Now I know that probably when he closes debate on second reading of this bill, the Minister of Finance will tell us with some pride that his government has contributed more to the assessment authority for this fiscal year than is required under statute. We understand that, and that rebuttal will come as no surprise. But if we were to have an agency which was to properly and accurately appraise all property in I

British Columbia, then we submit that all property, whether owned by the Crown provincial or owned by any other public agency, or owned by individuals, should contribute to the cost of that appraisal.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a brief comment in support of the comments made by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), and in opposition to this bill.

Having served on the committee which eventually established the assessment authority of British Columbia, one of the concerns that was expressed over and over again by Members on both sides of the House, by independent appraisers, and by members of the assessment staff of the Province of British Columbia, was that the government has to stop riding on the backs of the property owners in the municipalities, cities, towns and villages of British Columbia. It has been riding on their back for far too long.

We thought for a while, Mr. Speaker, in remarks by the Agriculture Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich), that the Land Commission would pay full taxes. In a recent press release from the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that ICBC was going to pay full taxes, we thought that maybe a new trend was coming in that the government would stop this shift of extra taxation costs onto the property owner by living up to its responsibility and becoming a good, corporate citizen in the municipalities in which it is involved. But it appears that that isn't going to happen and that the government is — once again, as the Member for Saanich and the Islands pointed out — copping out on this whole question.

It was elaborately set up that assessors working for the assessment authority would make sure that all property was assessed at full 100 per cent valuation. And that didn't matter who owned that property. So the machinery was set up for that purpose, for that specific purpose, so that when the government had a change of heart and decided that it would live up to its responsibilities, the apparatus was already in gear and moving. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a slap in the face to the work of that committee to see this amendment before the House today.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the disappointment because of no rapid change in the programme that we inherited, but we didn't have any option of any history. I refer you to your colleague sitting next to you in his role as Conservative Member when he attacked the former Social Credit government for the whole mess in the assessment area. We moved into the assessment area

[ Page 2447 ]

with what I thought was an excellent all-party committee, and I want to say that all the Members approached that committee service on a non-partisan basis. This is a very difficult problem and there are tremendous pulls on politicians when they are faced with problems around assessments.

So the all-party committee did a first-class job. They came up with the assessment authority, and now the naming of the people in the assessment authority is not a political instrument. You'll find people from all political persuasions on that assessment authority. I think everybody applauds the fact that there are Socreds, Liberals, Conservatives. I don't know if there is an NDP on the assessment authority. But we made sure there was a broad range of philosophical points of view.

These people have been sent off with a very important task. We set out to finance them, and we don't feel that non-taxable property should have to bear a part of that cost. That's all this amendment means. We'll see what their work brings out and what their recommendations bring out. The former administration had a grant system and we are continuing the grant system. We will wait and see what the assessment authority comes up with in terms of direction.

It's a delicate problem. We've gone a long way with it. I think that when we came in and rushed into the first amendments, there was a great deal of political jockeying around Bill 71, as I recall. And that's fair game. Everybody has to have a go politically. But out of that we have come to the taxation authority, and I think we are on a good track.

This is a minor amendment and I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 11

Bill 28, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.

[ Page 2448 ]

APPENDIX

I The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.I) intituled Perpetuities Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, subsection (2), line 3: By deleting "land" and substituting 94 property to the unborn child or other issue of an unborn person".

Section 6, subsection (1), clause (a), line 3: After "duration of the period" insert ", to the extent it is determined by a life in being, ".

Section 22, clause (b), line 1: After "savings plan" insert "or home ownership savings plan".

5 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.5) intituled Administration Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

Section 3: By deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) and substituting the following:

"(d) By repealing subsection (6) and substituting:

"(6) A notice mailed to the Public Trustee pursuant to this section shall contain a list of the names and last known addresses of the beneficiaries or persons entitled and shall be accompanied by copies of all documents filed with the Court in respect of the application for the grant or resealing."

6 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.6) intituled cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

By adding the following as section 2:

1. The definition of "association" in section 2 is amended by inserting "or 60A" after "section 60".