CONTENTS

An Act To Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill 143). Mr. D.A. Anderson.

Introduction and first reading — 3887

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 144). Mr. D.A. Anderson.

Introduction and first reading — 3887

Oral Questions

Reasons for housing conference. Mr. Phillips — 3887

Approval of pay increases for order-in-council appointees. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3887

Illegal operation of airline carrier service. Mr. Wallace — 3888

Saanich strawberries selling at a loss. Mr. Curtis — 3888

Diking at Roberts Bank. Mr. Chabot — 3888

Results of meeting with Indians. Mr. Fraser — 3889

Cancellation of hospital lease. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3889

Fire services in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 3889

Concession at Fort Steele. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 3889

Squamish railcar plant production. Mr. Bennett — 3890

Reinstitution of North Okanagan paving projects. Mrs. Jordan — 3890

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3890

Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 110). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 3890

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act (Bill 130). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3891

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3896

Statement

Memorandum of understanding re Indian cut-off lands.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3898

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3899

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 97).

Committee, report and third reading — 3901

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 135). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3901

Report stage — 3901

Public Service Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 136). Committee stage.

On section 7.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3901

Report and third reading — 3901

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 140). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Phillips — 3902

On section 15.

Mr. Phillips — 3902

Report and third reading — 3902

Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources Amendment Act, 197 5- (Bill 127). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3902

On section 2.

Mr. Curtis — 3903

Amendments to section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 3905

On section 2.

Mr. Gardom — 3906

Amendments to section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3908

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 3909

Division on section 2 — 3918

On the title.

Mr. Phillips — 3918

Report and third reading — 3918

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3918

On section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

On section 3.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

On section 4.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 143, An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act, 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 144, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act, 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.

Oral questions.

REASON FOR HOUSING CONFERENCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Housing with regard to the upcoming housing conference on June 26 and 27 in Vancouver. Was this conference instigated by the Department of Housing or was it requested by the public sector? In other words, what I'm trying to determine, Mr. Minister, is why we are having this housing conference at this time.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to answer that. I've had several representations made in my office by such diverse groups as the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Vancouver District Labour Council, the construction association, Urban Development Institute, HUDAC and various municipalities, a lot of them saying many of the same things and having some differences. I felt it would be helpful if these people could be brought together to share some of their points of view and some of their experience. Response has been very great in this area.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister's frank reply. But in looking over the list of speakers I wonder if the government is going to talk to these people and try and give them a message as to how the government is doing things, or are they going to listen to the private sector as to what the private sector suggests? Is it a conference where you're going to be telling the private sector what to do or are you going to be listening for suggestions?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that if one looks at the list of speakers they will see that it's weighted probably toward input from the private sector. Even some of the speakers who might appear by their title to be well versed in the public sector in fact have experience in both fields, such as the Deputy Minister from Ontario, who is coming out to speak, and, of course, Mr. Paulus of Dunhill Development. We are in this one concentrating really on the private sector, although I expect that things will range fairly widely.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a purely invitational meeting. I would ask the Minister if any provision has been made to include any Members of this House as observers.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, there have not been such provisions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Hah!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is an invitational meeting, Mr. Speaker. There have been several held in the past to which we have been invited.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we come anyway?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's going to be very crowded, Mr. Member. Within the confines of the room there will be some record kept of the proceedings in a brief sort of form in an attempt to follow up.

MR. FRASER: Is that your version of open government?

MR. GIBSON: On a continuing supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him if the press is going to be excluded as well, and if he wouldn't give consideration to having MLAs there as well, because we can't get any sensible answers on housing in this House and we'd like to hear some experts.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

APPROVAL OF PAY INCREASES FOR
ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTEES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the

[ Page 3888 ]

Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Has the executive council approved pay increases for Deputy Ministers, Associate Deputy Ministers and other order-in-council appointments?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That's a matter of public record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question I'd like to ask is that it's no longer a matter of public record in that we can no longer get information on the pay that these people are receiving, unlike past practice. I would ask the Provincial Secretary whether his office would instruct the Public Service Commission to make such information on the amounts paid to Deputy Ministers and Associate Deputy Ministers available to Members of this House.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not any more.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As the Minister seems to be in doubt, Mr. Speaker, I point out that according to order-in-council 147 75 of January 15 and order-in-council 542 75 of February 6, no longer are the actual amounts being given but only the ranges within which such people are being paid. We can no longer get information on their pay scales.

ILLEGAL OPERATION OF
AIRLINE CARRIER SERVICE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport and Communications seems to be very alert today, I wonder if I could ask him a question with regard to the carrier service which delivers lost airline baggage from Vancouver airport to the homes of travellers travelling with Air Canada. Is the Minister aware that in February the contract was awarded to Perimeter Transportation Ltd. and that this company has no permit from the motor carriers branch and is therefore functioning illegally?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I was not aware of that; I'll check into it.

MR. WALLACE: As a follow-up, Mr. Speaker, there appears to have been some delay in considering the application. Could he find out if there is some concern in the department about granting this permit? If the function is continuing illegally, will he consider asking the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to lay charges?

SAANICH STRAWBERRIES
SELLING AT A LOSS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister would tell the House if he or his department have had any representation from Saanich peninsula strawberry growers regarding the fact that these growers are reportedly being forced to sell their 1975 crop at a loss as a result of foreign imports.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I can't answer for any member of my department. I can only say that no such representations have reached my desk as yet.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. In the event that such a request reaches his desk, or such a complaint regarding foreign imports, would he consider sympathetically referring this matter to his federal counterpart?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the question is hypothetical. The Minister heard it anyway.

DIKING AT ROBERTS BANK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. With respect to the diking at Roberts Bank, which has been labelled incredible stupidity, would the Minister advise the House whether or not he plans to halt construction of the diking system until such time as a full environmental impact study of the area has been made?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It's a matter that is being reviewed now with my staff, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Does this indicate that an environmental impact study will be carried out? We know that it's warranted and justified. Does this mean that you're going to carry out an environmental impact study?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, those lands are lands to which the Indians hold title, and the location of the dike is the location that the Indian people themselves wanted. As I said, the matter is being reviewed.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Are members of your department presently meeting with the Indians regarding this problem?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any

[ Page 3889 ]

meetings with the Indian people. There have been many other meetings with the Indian people, however.

MR. WALLACE: On that same subject, could the Minister tell the House if the contents of the federal environmental study were known to this government prior to starting on the project to build the dike?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I myself, Mr. Speaker, was not familiar with the federal environmental study.

RESULTS OF MEETING WITH INDIANS

MR. FRASER: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources, in his capacity as acting on Indian affairs. Was there a meeting this morning, who attended it and have you anything to report to the House? The B.C. Indian Chiefs.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): There were about 30 members of bands from the various reserves involved in the cut-off lands question. We had a long discussion. We agreed to meet again at 2:30 this afternoon. I would hope that if everything goes well I'll be able to make a statement, with leave of the House, later on.

CANCELLATION OF HOSPITAL LEASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister's department rescinded the letter it issued earlier this month, a letter which cancelled the Victoria General Hospital's lease on the Humboldt Street property in front of St. Ann's Academy?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Not to my knowledge.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, could I ask the Minister whether he will take this matter up with his colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is not present here today, and make sure that what the Minister of Health is willing to give the Minister of Public Works doesn't take away?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

FIRE SERVICES IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. HALL: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked a question regarding the serious fire in the City of Victoria. By way of reply, I'd like to advise him that amendments were made to the Fire Marshal Act last year enabling the chief of the fire department in any municipality, or any persons authorized by the chief, not only to exercise all the powers of local assistance; but they can order an owner, an occupier of a hotel or of a public building to make or provide alterations to have a better fire-prevention system.

In addition to that, the Attorney-General appointed Dr. Hugh Keenleyside to undertake a study of firefighting services. The study was completed and presented Thursday of last week.... I'm sorry, it is available now from the Queen's Printer. I remember some discussion about that being tabled. An initial meeting of representatives of the office of the Attorney-General's department and the Provincial Fire Marshal's office has been held to consider the Keenleyside report, which contains over 40 recommendations. Future follow-up meetings have already been slated with dates attached to them. These recommendations and the financial implications will be studied and then we shall start to begin a phase-in of the steps necessary to establish a first-class fire service in this province. That's by way of general answer.

In particular, I have asked now in writing for those meetings to be intensified, speeded up, in view of the information and in view of the allegations and the obvious concern we must now have that some areas of the province are apparently not protected to the level that we even anticipated.

Secondly, the Attorney-General is frequently in front of Treasury Board. He wins some and he loses some. It would not be appropriate for me to make those announcements about his degree of success or failure. In terms of firefighting, at this point in time....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What's the score — five-love?

HON. MR. HALL: Did you say 15-love? The last thing is that I and the acting Attorney-General for this week will be meeting later on this afternoon to go over some of the questions that have been raised in the last couple of days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he?

HON. MR. HALL: The Gazette informs us all that the acting Attorney General this week is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

CONCESSION AT FORT STEELE

HON. MR. HALL: The next question taken as notice yesterday was from the Member for Columbia River, who asked me if I could advise why the concessionaire or qualified steam engineer who has operated the railroad concession at Fort Steele for the last six years has been replaced by a Victoria

[ Page 3890 ]

resident after having been advised last year that this concession would be put up for tender.

I've made some preliminary checks, Mr. Member, and the concessionaire who operated the railroad concession in Fort Steele until 1974 indicated he would not be back for the 1975 season. Consequently, it was advertised by the Parks department and a new person was selected. The tender for the concession is not advertised each year if the service is, satisfactory, and the new concessionaire gave very satisfactory service in 1974.

However, your point was that the fellow who retired, or who said he wouldn't continue, was assured that he would have an opportunity to bid. That part of my investigation is not yet complete, and I hope to have further information for the Member.

SQUAMISH RAILCAR PLANT PRODUCTION

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister Without Portfolio as a director of the B.C. Railway: now that the car plant in Squamish has been functional since March 26, can the Minister advise the House how many cars have been produced to this date?

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): I'd be very happy to get that information. I haven't got the full information, but we do know that it has been a major project, and it is going to fill a very great need for the British Columbia Railway and the people of British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary. While you are getting the information, could you advise if the car plant is up to its four-car-per-day production estimate, and what type of cars, and the cost of the cars — what they are being produced at in relation to what they could be purchased at?

REINSTITUTION OF
NORTH OKANAGAN PAVING PROJECTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Minister of Highways: would he please advise the House if three major paving projects in the North Okanagan which were cancelled after being begun in June — namely Bluejay subdivision, Railboy City subdivision and the Pearson Road area, the BX — will be reinstituted and continued?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I read that newspaper column too, and I've already commented to the press on it. To my knowledge there haven't been any cancellations, but I will check on it and bring you the information.

MRS. JORDAN: Will the Minister advise why they were cancelled?

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 103.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975
(continued)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, after careful examination of every clause of this bill, I have come to the conclusion that the Minister was absolutely right; it can better be handled in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 103, Municipal 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, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 110.

NATURAL GAS REVENUE SHARING ACT
(continued)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We've really covered the basic concept of municipal financing in various bills this session. I don't want to be repetitive, only to say that we do seem to be tackling the problem of municipal financing somewhat piecemeal. Although this is a step in the right direction by helping the municipalities to get away from being too entirely dependent on the per capita grant, I think that a more co-coordinated programme of financing for the municipalities would be very welcome.

This also is a bill that we could probably consider better in committee, although I am very interested in particular in what the Minister refers to in the bill as "a special community disparity grant." That's a

[ Page 3891 ]

delightful, long phrase that doesn't say very much. It says that all municipalities are not equal and there is some kind of disparity grant involved in the $20 million from the natural gas revenue, but perhaps the Minister would prefer to discuss that in committee.

In one of the other bills I went over the point that the municipalities deserve to have a more reliable, more predictable, more consistent form of financing, related by some formula to the continuing growth of provincial revenues by whatever source. I still think that, although this bill is a step in the right direction, the government surely in the near future should come up with a more permanent and more realistic formula for the financing of the municipalities. We will support the bill.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, the only points I would wish to make at second reading stage are two. First of all, while additional moneys for municipalities are very welcome, it is the wrong thing to do to finance them out of a diminishing natural resource. These kinds of grants should be made out of general provincial revenues. We have made that point before and we will continue to make it.

The second point relates to the manner of the distribution of the funds. The bases for grants, as they are called in section 3, are reasonably comprehensive. I would commend to the Minister's attention particular emphasis on one of them, namely the second which would provide for grants to each municipality, based upon the annual increase in new housing units in the municipality.

Our fundamental problem, certainly in the lower mainland area of British Columbia, is the problem of growth and getting the municipalities to accept growth within their boundaries because there is a genuine cost of growth to each area. We've seen municipalities, such as Surrey, go to impost charges to try and recompense themselves for the costs of growth, new people coming in.

To me, the far preferable solution is for the province to bear those costs of growth because the municipalities are in a way helpless to say where growth is going. It should be a general burden spread over the taxpayers of the whole province, rather than just the taxpayers of the municipality that happens to be a recipient of the growth. Failing that, we will find those municipalities seeking to prevent people coming in.

I commend very much to the Minister's attention an increase in the emphasis on this particular section of the grant basis in years to come.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There have been a number of very interesting comments in this second reading debate. I think the argument that the municipalities are not receiving enough money, is one we hear regularly. I think this is one case where there has been a real effort to try and come to grips with that problem.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggests that the grants to municipalities are somewhat piecemeal. I can do nothing but agree with that. There's no question about it; it is piecemeal and it gets more piecemeal every year. It's true that it's a subject that we have to really come to grips with as time goes by.

The amount involved this year is $20 million. Presumably, next year, due to the fact that there will be increases for a full 12 months rather than for only a few months, I would anticipate that probably the amount would be in the neighbourhood of double this figure.

As far as the community disparity is concerned, that is a difficult section in that no matter what formula you try to come up with, it's almost impossible to cover every circumstance. Realizing that there were certain communities that didn't fit into the formula area, we used community disparity as a definition of that situation. They will need assistance like other communities even though they don't fit into the formula.

MR. WALLACE: There is a lot of discretion in that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's a lot of discretion; it's totally discretionary and that's why it's put in that it's in consultation with the UBCM just so that I wouldn't be criticized. (Laughter.) I move second reading.

MR. WALLACE: But who would do that? Who would do a think like that?

Motion approved.

Bill 110, Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, 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 130, Mr. Speaker.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER ACT

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to come to grips with situations which occur in the province where we have, as in this particular case, a recreational area where there are very few permanent residents but where the population on any given weekend, or through the winter months may be very, very large.

Facilities required for such an area are facilities

[ Page 3892 ]

required for a population of a substantial amount greater than what is actually permanently residing there. Obviously the costs of servicing this type of community cannot be borne totally by the permanent residents and by the general population of that particular area.

There are two or three methods we have looked at, I might say, in extensive consultation with the regional district with whom I have met over the past year, I suppose, better than half-a-dozen times in dealing with this particular subject. Due to the fact that there has to be a substantial amount of provincial government money put into the area, and the fact that the provincial government owns a very high percentage of the land in question, and the fact that the area is basically for the benefit of the people of the province as a whole and not strictly the local residents, it's an isolated case.

There are three methods we did look at. One was a method whereby we would go the instant town route and appoint five aldermen to look after the community for a period of five years to get it set up and established, and then look at the permanent structure that would be used at that time. The second proposal was to use a system like they have in the endowment lands: to have a manager and handle the operation as an endowment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then Williams would take it over.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, we hadn't got to that point (laughter) as to whether I would be the czar or not. But I was prepared.

The third one was the method that we did arrive at wherein there will be one appointed representative from the province but the other four will be elected; and the mayor will be elected by the residents of that community.

We don't know how it's going to work. It's an experiment. We believe that there may have to be changes as time goes along, but this has been studied at great length and I believe we have covered most of the problems that might arise. However, there may have to be amendments brought in from time to time. But we will see as time progresses. I might also say that the regional district — the last time I spoke with them, at least — is in full agreement with the proposals that we submitted to them at that time. I don't know what their opinion is today because I haven't heard from them in these last few days.

So I think that I will try and answer your questions and move second reading.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Obviously, there are two or three other Members of this House who are far more familiar with the Whistler area than I am. I am going therefore to speak very briefly and say that I'm pleased to hear the Minister indicate that this is an experiment, that considerable thought has gone into it. However, it's once again a very late-appearing bill, Mr. Speaker, introduced by the Minister on June 11th and now being — may I use the term — "pushed" through the Legislature in what may be the dying days of this part of the session.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, I would accept an adjournment.

MR. CURTIS: But the principle, the precedent contained here...

HON. MR. LORIMER: You could adjourn it for a year.

MR. CURTIS: ...with regard to the appointment of.... I'm just delighted that the Minister's hanging on every word, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) He's just sitting on the edge of his chair. As a matter of fact, he's fallen off the edge of his chair.

There is a dangerous precedent here, Mr. Speaker, I think, in the appointment by the provincial government of an alderman, whether it's for five months or five years or longer. For whatever reasons the Minister may have stated, whatever reasons the Minister's department and perhaps other departments, including Lands, Forests and Water Resources may feel, if this government finds it possible to do in this specific instance, then this government may find it possible to do the same again, or some other government may find it possible and plausible, to introduce the appointing of an alderman to another council at some time in the future.

This area surely is not the only one in British Columbia where land is largely Crown-owned and where a relatively small population expands rapidly at given times — on the weekends or at a particular season. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister may care to comment on if it is necessary to have an appointee in this instance. Perhaps he would like to tell us why it has not been necessary to have appointed regional district electoral area directors in some other areas which, as I said just a moment ago, experience rapid population growth for recreational purposes. I'm sure the Minister would think of some islands which would fit into the same general category. So there's a lack of consistency here. If this government and previous governments have not found it necessary to appoint to a council, what is so special about Whistler in this particular case?

I note also — and we'll have an opportunity at committee stage — that section 10 makes the community plan pretty well the creation of the Minister designated and this government. I'm not very satisfied with that either.

[ Page 3893 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset, I don't pretend to know a great deal about Whistler. But from the Municipal Affairs point of view, I think, contained in this bill is a precedent which could be abused and repeated and therefore abused again in the future. That does give us concern.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I'm the only Member for Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We can always hope. I live in Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: This bill obviously is unique in that this is, in my view, an exploratory or experimental step forward in dealing with the municipality quite different from the general concept of municipalities. I share the concern that the Member for Saanich and the Islands has just expressed when one alderman is appointed by the Minister. At this time, as we all know, the municipalities are very concerned about the erosion of their local autonomy by some of the actions of this government.

We don't need to do a replay of this morning's debate about the Inner Harbour. I notice the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) is listening very carefully to every word I say. So we don't need to go all over that again. But there is a concern by the municipalities that the provincial government is eroding their authority.

On the other hand, I would be fair and say this: this government, if it is to put $10 million into sewage disposal facilities in this unique municipality, I think has every right to be sure that it has at least one voice in the first council. As one goes through the bill, the principle is to overcome some of the local problems. The Minister mentioned that the population of a few hundred swells to 20,000 at different times and that the few hundred people can't be expected to face the municipal costs of services for such a large population part of the year.

In balance, I would say that as long as the Minister can assure us that this is not getting the foot in the door, as it were, in acquiring greater provincial interference in municipalities generally by suggesting that maybe this is a precedent by which he wishes to expand and try to appoint alderman of any kind of general principle as a certain percentage of all councils, for example, as might be the thought or the fear of some people.... If we can have that assurance, I think, in the light of the financing which the provincial government is willing to put into this municipality, I would be confident in the Minister, particularly since he has given us such a sparkling performance in recent days with very honest and open and complete answers, an example which some of his colleagues might emulate, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that I am not deeply concerned. As the Minister stated himself, we don't really know where this initial project or this initial experiment might go. I notice that the Minister is quoted in the press as saying that the Tofino area, which has a large influx of visitors at weekends and during the summer, might also have to be considered appropriate for this kind of legislation.

Since we have talked about ski developments in the Whistler area and the $10 million which the Minister has said publicly will be involved in providing sewers and sewage disposal facilities and so on, I am a little bit interested to know where, if anywhere, this bill overlaps with 127. Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to transgress on another bill still before the House. But we are talking about the same general area. Since the financing and the borrowing powers involved in the other legislation are very contentious to the Members on this side of the House, and since we have had the Minister make a public statement that $10 million would probably be the figure involved in this bill, I wonder if in winding up debate he could tell us to what degree there is co-operation or co-ordination of efforts and just how the financing of this $10 million sewage disposal unit relates in any way to the same area covered by the other Minister's responsibility.

Finally, while it again sounds like a rerun of previous debates, the power given to the Minister to write regulations is very considerable at the end of this bill. There is very wide discretion given to the Minister who, in the usual terminology, "without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations," and then proceeds to outline some pretty loosely and broadly defined discretion which the Minister would have in writing regulations. Even the last part of that particular section, respecting any other matter required to carry out the intent and purposes of the Act," is in this category. I can't think of anything more widespread and diffuse in its authority to the Minister than that.

So to conclude, I am saying that I like the idea that this government realizes that there are some unique problems in certain parts of the province related to the factors we have mentioned. I think it shows an initiative on the part of the government to try and deal with that kind of problem.

I certainly will support this bill, but with these one or two provisos. I want an assurance that this is not some kind of precedent or excuse to apply some of these concepts to municipalities generally, and I would like some information about the overlap with the other legislation. And I wonder if the Minister could also give us some reassurance about the very wide discretion covered under the section dealing

[ Page 3894 ]

with the writing of regulations.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the Members have taken such a great interest in this most exciting part of the most exciting constituency in British Columbia, and are expressing so much concern for this legislation which this dynamic Minister has again brought before the House.

I must say that, if anything, I was a little disappointed with what the Minister had to say. I thought I could understand his desire to be cautious when embarking upon a new experiment of this kind, but I thought that he could have been at least cautiously optimistic about the future of the resort municipality of Whistler. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that having had a meeting last Saturday with a number of the people who reside in that area, they are certainly optimistic about the opportunity which the Minister is affording to them with this bill.

I suppose caution is always wise. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) mentioned last week, when opening the debate on Bill 127, that it was a companion to this legislation. I just want to say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I don't think he should allow a young child like this to be associating with bad companions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Right on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The success of this legislation will depend a great deal upon the extent to which the Minister of Municipal Affairs is able to protect this small child of a municipality from the influences of the other Minister who has some fairly aggressive ideas about what should take place in that area.

I can understand the Members being concerned about whether this is a new indication of increasing power being taken by the provincial government over the affairs of municipalities. I have watched Whistler develop since 1961 — long before there was a road, long before there was a chairlift, long before anybody really skied it, except a few very aggressive mountaineers, back in the days when the Olympics were first mooted for that area, during the days when GODA was first formed — I have watched it develop with a highway, then the ski lift in 1965-66 and an ever-expanding investment in that community until, I think, the value of construction in that area is something like $90 million today. There it sits in unorganized territory, controlled only by its regional district, and controlled very well by the regional district, but a constant source of problems for the regional district.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the regional district of Squamish-Lillooet has spent about three-quarters of its time concerning itself with the problems created by the activity generated at this mountain both summer and winter. The people there need some government organization at the local level, and this is a step which I have urged upon government in all the nine years that I have been in this House — to make a move and get things going. I think if the government had moved some five or six years ago, while we would still be facing problems at Whistler, they would be problems of a different kind than will confront this infant municipality.

Mention has been made about the financial contribution which the government will have to make directly in getting this municipality off the ground. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talks about the approximately $10 million expenditure in order to establish the sewage system. That, I suspect, is only for starters; there will be other expenses incurred in the creation of this municipality and setting up, this administrative structure, which this government will have to bear. For that reason I think there is some good justification to ensure that there is a member on that council who is able to communicate directly with the provincial government and with the Minister in order to satisfy him that the municipality is moving progressively toward the central objective.

There's another good reason, I think, for the Minister to perhaps exercise some control over the council, certainly in the early days — maybe even a greater control than is mentioned in this bill. The Minister has power to change the composition of council; it may be that it will be required. While this may look like a dangerous precedent, I know from other areas in my constituency that frictions can develop in this kind of a community which can only be resolved if somehow or other the composition of local government is changed. It is brought about largely because of the policy of the present government in restricting the right to vote to people who have their principal residence within the community.

As a consequence in the area of Whistler, while you have a very small population who live there full-time, you have an awful lot of people who have a very great interest, financial and otherwise, in the development of that community. It would be a retrograde step if the residents of that community were, through their right to vote and elect the mayor and three aldermen, to exercise a control over the destiny of the municipality to the detriment of those other people who have a very great financial or other interest. It may be that the government will be required to exercise some influence on the part of those others.

Now I say that only as an indication of the problem, because I am satisfied, from the people I have talked to in the Whistler area, people who live

[ Page 3895 ]

there full-time, that they are looking forward to ensuring, as well as they can, that people are elected to the council who do not reside full-time in the municipality of Whistler. The laws of this province permit this to take place. I would hope that out of the mayor and three aldermen, we might easily find a situation where two of them are elected from full-time residents, and we might have two who are people who don't live there full-time but nevertheless have a significant interest in the affairs of the community.

This will be an exciting opportunity, I believe. It should be approached cautiously, but I think it will be an exciting opportunity to establish this form of local government in British Columbia which will serve the unique needs of an area such as Whistler. It has great opportunity for expansion as a winter and summer recreational area. It is bound to attract people to come and invest by the construction of recreational homes, people who would not have their full-time residence there, and some control must be exercised by the people who have the dedication and the interest to ensure that the community develops.

This is a chance. It is, I think, a better chance than is afforded by the technique of the Islands Trust, I hope that the people at Whistler, the full-time residents and part-time residents, will take the opportunity to make this a success.

I am concerned, too, about the community-plan concept, but I know that in response the Minister will say that you have to start with something and that the council of the municipality, and the department, will be able to contemplate necessary changes in that community plan as the circumstances dictate. I think the proof will remain in the eating, and I would only hope that the Minister is able to continue the open-minded and the open-handed way in which he has so far dealt with the regional district and the people at Whistler in designing this new structure for local government.

I think it is something we will all watch with great interest, but also hoping that it will have great success.

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

HON. MR. LORIMER: I do want to publicly mention the co-operation I have received from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound in regard to this particular piece of legislation. He seemed to have more interest in the area than some of the other Members, and I appreciate his assistance.

He's answered many of the questions that were raised by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). But I would point out that there has been mention of concern about the appointment of aldermen. There is obviously no intention on this government's part of appointing aldermen in municipalities, except in special cases, and this is a special case.

I mentioned earlier, in introducing second reading, that the other alternative was to go the instant-town route. I don't like going back in history, but there have been over a dozen communities set up by the previous administration where all aldermen were appointed, and the mayor was appointed. It was to avoid this sort of thing that I took the other route. I suggest to you that I am as much concerned about the appointment of aldermen as anyone in the House. I think it is essential in some cases, and I think this is one case where it is essential.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said that I wasn't very enthusiastic about this bill. I want to assure him that I am very enthusiastic. He may have noted my eyes were open today. (Laughter.) I'm very keen on this bill. It's a good piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were on red alert.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's right. (Laughter.)

I might say that a substantial amount of work was put into the drafting and consideration of this particular piece of legislation. I likewise hope it will by successful, and I am sure it will.

The cost involved, the provincial input of funds, is hard to estimate at this time. I would agree with the previous speaker that it will be many millions more than is anticipated at this time, and it won't be done all in one year. It will be done gradually.

Voting procedures. I think it is essential that.... We have this problem in a number of places. People say: "Well, I have land here. I'm more interested in Whistler than in Vancouver where I live permanently. I come here on the weekends, and I would prefer to vote in Whistler."

In these kinds of areas, and the Gulf Islands are another example, the population of part-time residents and visitors is much higher than the permanent population, and as such conceivably could have complete control of the destinies of those particular locations.

Now I think there have to be changes made in voting privileges — or voting rights in this sort of area but I'm not convinced yet what that solution should be. I can see where we should be a little more lenient on what is the area of residence, where the permanent residence is, because I think that the courts have in the past been very tight on what is the permanent residence, and they have been very, very strict. I think that with the number of people who did apply to the courts last year about residence, I think that, in my opinion, the courts could have been possible a little more lenient in their judgments.

There is a mention that there would have to be

[ Page 3896 ]

co-operation between the area in the province and that's absolutely true. When Whistler reaches its full potential there will have to be complete co-operation between the provincial government and the aldermen involved, and this one alderman that is appointed will, as has been mentioned, represent the interest of those thousands of people who will be using the facilities of Whistler and have no votes in that particular area, and will also be a very simple liaison between the council and the provincial government.

Now the question of the regulations. I think they are essential in the initial stages. Things can go wrong that have to be corrected reasonably quickly and there's no intention on my part of making any regulation that isn't absolutely necessary for the proper operation of this new community.

Enacting of the community plan I think is also essential because at the present time the lands there are basically frozen under the Environment and Land Use Committee's regulations under which there can be no development at the present time. So that by incorporation of the plan which has had public input and public debate in the area, it can be implemented immediately. The order-in-council of the Environment and Land Use Committee can be withdrawn immediately and the municipality can, if they so desire, amend the community plan as they see fit. I think it's essential that this be put in place immediately to relieve the community from the strictures of the Environment and Land Use Committee's activities.

I think I've answered most of the questions. Oh, there is one other thing. The utility as such will not be in conflict with Bill 127 in that utilities will be owned and paid for totally by the province and will be provincially-owned, rented to the users, so that there will be no input from the payment from the residents or the part-time residents of that particular area.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 130, Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, 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 129, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PAYMENT TO CANADA
OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ON BEHALF OF
NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may go on with Bill 129. The Members will recall that amendments were made to the Federal Income Tax Act effective May 6, 1974 which gave the Department of National Revenue the authority to deem as income of a producer of natural gas what they considered to be the difference between the market value of the gas purchased by B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the price at which that gas was actually purchased by the corporation.

It's important to maintain the actual cash revenue in the hands of the producers, important in order to encourage them to continue producing and to encourage looking for new sources of gas. So this bill before us is intended to maintain the cash flow that the producers would have had if it had not been for this particular amendment to the federal Income Tax Act.

As far as the formula itself is concerned, there is provision in the legislation to allow it to be set by regulation in anticipation that there will be changes in the federal income tax from time to time and so that we will be able to accommodate those changes, it is possible that the formula may have to be changed from time to time. Hence, it will be provided for in the regulations themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 129.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about this bill. It is a tax lawyer's delight. Whoever drafted it must have had quite a time in drafting it. It is too bad, in a way, because it seems just a little bit unnecessary to me. It arises, if I understand rightly the genesis of it, out of the Premier's ideological hang-up with the thought that somehow funds left in the hands of companies to be taxed might be what he called "laundered and shrunk" before being passed on to the federal government.

I think he underestimates the vigilance of the federal tax collectors who, after all, do collect our corporate income taxes for us in British Columbia. To that extent, it seems to me unnecessary. It provides for the province to get into the middle of things, into the expense of tax matters and disputes properly left between the producers and Ottawa.

Perhaps even more importantly, this bill marks out a bit of a trail which I think we should be very cautious about going down, inasmuch as it in effect provides for the payment of taxes from one level of government to another.

By virtue of this bill, the Crown provincial is remitting tax to the Crown federal. It is remitting tax on funds that would otherwise remain the property of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. To that extent therefore, British Columbia is de facto admitting the power, if not the right, of the Crown federal to reach into our coffers and in some manner or means, tax them.

The whole field of intergovernmental taxation in this country is very, very complex. I imagine that

[ Page 3897 ]

there are now, as there have been for the last decade, committees of federal and provincial officials meeting from time to time on the subject. I think this bill is not a contribution toward clarifying that subject, but rather toward obscuring it.

I think it is unfortunate that it has been brought before the House for reasons which seem to me at best nebulous and spurious. I think it is a silly bill, Mr. Speaker, which has taken a lot of time of a lot of people and is going to take a lot more time down the road. I think it is unfortunate it has been drafted and brought before us. It is completely unnecessary.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation had its genesis perhaps somewhat earlier than was mentioned by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. I think it had its genesis when this government, with its ideological stance, decided to establish the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and embark upon the exercise which made in necessary for the national government to bring down its budget to single out the producers in British Columbia for very special treatment — special treatment involving, as the Member has said, the establishment of a price, a value for the commodity upon which they would be subject to tax, a unique position carved out for people who carry on their business in the Province of British Columbia. As we know, that produced the Minister's triumphant trip to Ottawa and his return like Napoleon, with his one hand stuck into his jacket.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. It was because his hand was in shreds. (Laughter.) He had reached out when he thought he was going to pull something back and he got his hand slapped pretty badly. As a consequence, we are now embarking with this legislation — as the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano had said — on a unique constitutional landmark whereby the province is paying tax to the national government in respect of a resource which belongs to the province. It is all because the Minister of Finance got mixed up right in the very beginning.

We haven't heard the last of this problem yet, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not going to cure it. The Minister of Finance for Canada brought down a budget yesterday which again deals with certain tax allowances with regard to people who engage in the exploration and production of petroleum and natural gas resources.

The influence which that budget, or a subsequent budget, can have upon the obligation, a continuing obligation, of the provincial government to pay taxes to Ottawa is something about which we can only speculate. But what we have done, what the government has done, by the actions of the Premier in embarking upon this course, this new constitutional approach to federal-provincial relations, is to place us in continuing jeopardy every time the national government wishes to adjust its taxing policies and the policies by which it will encourage, or discourage, the production of petroleum and natural gas resources in Canada.

We are now clearly trapped by the national government in the control and the revenue control of what is a provincial resource. This government, and a subsequent government will have, I think, the most difficult task in extricating themselves from the grip of the national government into which this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has delivered us.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we too realize that this bill is a result of federal-provincial lack of consultation, or perhaps confrontation that seems to have developed.

It seems to be the eternal struggle for taxation powers and revenue that's gone on for many years that's broken out into the open, and it's distressing that we have heard in this House in the past statements that if we set up Crown corporations we can save paying federal tax money.

As we move into federal tax revenues — and we have with new Crown corporations, which seems to be the way this government wishes to go — they have sought reprisals to move into our tax fields, and particularly our province was singled out when federal legislation was brought in that would affect British Columbia resource in regards to taxation.

I, too, express the sentiments that the two previous speakers have raised, that we're getting into a deeper and deeper legislative jungle and it can only be solved by federal-provincial consultation.

Bills, and succeeding bills, both federally and provincially will only exaggerate the situation. I believe the traditional provincial taxation rights must be fought for in this province, and that is taxation for our resources.

I believe this government should fight for them as I hope they would, and that future governments will protect the provincial interests. This bill does nothing to protect that interest. It is an acceptance of the federal position. It's accommodating to the federal intrusion. It doesn't guarantee within it enough money to give the gas exploration companies enough money to continue exploration. It does nothing for British Columbia.

What we need is some clear indication that we can reach through consultation some sort of understanding with the federal government over where its tax sources lie and our tax sources lie. The confrontation has taken place and it continues to take place with bills such as this, will not serve our province well. It's an unusual bill. It doesn't serve any

[ Page 3898 ]

useful purpose at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as was outlined by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), is a bill which essentially deals with the ideological hang-ups of the Premier, instead of any real effort to share revenue as it should be done. But I rise to my feet, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to at least congratulate the Minister of Finance in absentia for taking part in such things as taxation conferences. For years and years, this province refused to participate in the committee on intergovernmental taxation.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) seems to doubt that this took place. But for years and years, there was an official committee to go into such questions as whether or not federal taxation on the fuel used on B.C. Government Ferries should be subjected to federal tax or not. Always we got the same reply from the previous Premier: no way would he take part. It was going to be confrontation all the way and it was confrontation all the way. Now we have sweetness and light coming from the Leader of the Opposition about consultation needed, and it just sticks a little in my craw, Mr. Speaker, to hear that.

The present government is certainly making a number of curious decisions in this area. This bill is a result of hang-ups, but at least at this stage, we do have a certain amount of consultation taking place and we do have a little bit of participation between the governments in matters of joint interest.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I think that what I have to say about this bill is a little different from some of the comments that have been made by the previous speakers. What I would like to point out to the Minister is this: this bill is a requirement to circumvent a situation in which all of the producers of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia were literally being used as the ham in the sandwich between the federal and the provincial jurisdictions. While this bill will accommodate a situation so the producing companies at least will know that they will not get credit for tax paid through the provincial government paying tax on their behalf to the federal government, and there won't be a situation with respect to the future of producing companies in the Province of British Columbia. And it does nothing to provide assurance that they will receive a fair value for the gas that they produce, both from existing sources and from newly located wells.

I think this is a more serious problem and it's one that we must consider as well.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Do I have your permission to just break your remarks for a moment, as the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has a statement he wishes to make to the House?

MR. SMITH: I'll just be....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: If you're just going to be a moment.... All right, fine.

MR. SMITH: I'm not going to prolong the debate, Madam House Leader. All I want to say to the Minister is that the provincial government got themselves into a situation because they did not consult properly with Ottawa. Ottawa knew that they were going to lose tax revenue and they stepped in and said that they were not going to allow that to happen. We have the bill before us that will at least alleviate that situation. But it will not in any way guarantee a continuation of exploration in the Province of British Columbia, and that's unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask leave of the House to suspend the debate for the moment for an announcement.

Leave granted.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): This is a memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Province of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs cut-off lands committee.

"(1) It is agreed that as a symbolic gesture of good faith the Government of British Columbia will return 100 acres of the cut-off lands that are alienated vacant Crown lands by September 1, 1975. The decision as to which bands will receive the land will be made by the Government of British Columbia.

"(2) It is agreed that a cut-off lands committee will be constituted of three people, with one representative selected by the Government of British Columbia, one representative selected by the Indian people and with both representatives selecting the third member. The committee would recommend to the two parties to this agreement more specific terms of reference for the cut-off lands committee. Thereafter the committee will report to the Government of British Columbia its recommendations on or before December 31, 1976, and the government will reach resolution of the committee recommendations on or before June 24, 1977. In its inquiries the committee will receive submissions from the 23 individual bands with respect to cut-off lands associated with each

[ Page 3899 ]

band.

" (3) It is agreed that in the interim, discussions will proceed in an orderly fashion and that the public and the operation of government will not be inconvenienced by demonstrations, blockades or any other such actions.

"(4) All negotiations on the cut-off lands question are to be between the Government of British Columbia and the Indian representatives. The federal government will become involved through discussions directly with the Government of the Province of British Columbia."

It was signed by Chief Adam Eneas, George Watts, Harry Dick, Chief Joe Matthias; and on behalf of the government, myself, the Hon. Mr. Hartley, the Hon. Graham Lea, the Hon. Bob Williams and the Hon. Alf Nunweiler.

That is the end of the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) with a statement. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BENNETT: Well, in responding to the Minister's statement I want to congratulate him and congratulate the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on coming to resolution to stop the mounting confrontation. We welcome this and all of British Columbia welcomes that discussion will take place, hopefully, that there can be resolve to the question for all parties, hopefully that the 23 bands will all be successfully dealt with — and there must be resolution of — all 23 bands' land claims — hopefully that the type of confrontation that has taken place here and the type of resolve will help to reach a solution in the traditional Indian land claims for which hopefully this can be a forerunner.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this announcement by the Minister and congratulate him and all those who worked for this agreement, both on the side of the B.C. chiefs and, also on the side of the government. We trust that this will be followed up pretty quickly by similar action on the general question of Indian land claims in the Province of British Columbia, other than the cut-off lands.

We accept the Minister's statement that the province will in turn be dealing strictly with the federal government. We think that's a good precedent for the general question of Indian land claims. It prevents any buck-passing; it makes the issue very clear from the Indian people's point of view. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, with considerable interest to the report on December 31, 1976. We trust the Minister will see fit from time to time to bring in interim reports about the state of discussions. We further hope that the June 23, 1977, date can be met and that this injustice which has continued now for over half a century will finally, indeed, be settled.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Having been deeply involved and interested in the affairs of our Indian community as long as I've been in politics and years behind that, I would very much like to congratulate all concerned in what appears to me to be very much a hallmark decision and one that is long overdue. It indeed shows what can be done by an exercise of good faith and good intention, harmonious attitude and hard work by all concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture closes the debate. We will return now to Bill 129.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to say a few words.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the second reading of Bill 129.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the concepts that have been expressed in the House this afternoon by various Members of the opposition, this bill is clearly fraught with anticipated difficulty. It seems to me that it encompasses matters where the government is attempting to use very highly technical and, shall I say, confusing backfill legislation to support the ideological premise that has been so long enunciated by the socialists here. I very much feel that had the differences in attitudes between these two levels of government been taken to the negotiation table effectively, we could have had a result, not along the lines of this bill but much along the lines of the statement of the Minister who just spoke a few moments ago concerning an agreement and a general understanding between the Indian community and the people in this province.

I don't think this is the type of thing that should be proceeding by way of legislation. As I say, it's highly technical, it is confusing, it is backfill, and in my view it is just a welcome mat to some of the most confusing, difficult and expensive litigation that this province will ever run into.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll agree that the legislation is unnecessary had the government chosen to go the route of paying more money to the, producers of natural gas and have them pay a portion of this to Ottawa in the way of taxes. We could have

[ Page 3900 ]

done this, but certainly the people of British Columbia would have been out of pocket that additional amount. It's not just the difference between the deemed market value, if you like, and the actual price that was negotiated.

Certainly there's no one, I think, who has a better record, if I can say better in that context, of laundering money than the oil and gas producers. They're very good at finding ways of charging off items against income so that they pay the minimum amount of income tax. So if we had decided to pay to the producers the amount that was deemed by the Department of National Revenue to be the market value of tax, likely the federal government would have been more out of pocket or less in pocket and, of course, the provincial government, the corporation and ultimately the people of British Columbia would have been substantially less in pocket. So the bill would be unnecessary. We need not go this route, but by going this route we are making sure that the federal government gets more than it likely would have, and are making sure that the people of British Columbia get substantially more than they would have without this legislation.

I think it should be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the price that the producers are now getting for their natural gas was a price that was negotiated, a price that they contracted for. They signed a contract to supply the natural gas for 20 years to the corporation at the prices that were negotiated. It should also be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the prices were almost three-fold what they were getting before those contracts were signed. It should also be recalled that in order to persuade these producers to maintain and expand their production, adjustments have been made in those contract prices, even though the corporation by the terms of the contract was not obliged to actually pay any more than the contract actually called for. Yet the corporation, in the interests of increasing natural gas production, did make adjustments in those contracts.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) at least gave us the credit of trying to talk to Ottawa; indeed we did. We did try to negotiate just as the Hon. Minister of Human Resources tried to negotiate, and successfully negotiated, with the Indians, and the statement was just read to the House. I think all of the Members were pleased to hear that statement. Certainly all of the people of British Columbia will be pleased to hear that some resolution is apparently underway.

We would have liked to have had some resolution with the government in Ottawa, but you can only negotiate — you can only be reasonable — when you're dealing with reasonable people.

Unfortunately, we weren't dealing with reasonable people when we were dealing with people who wanted to do all they could for the natural gas producers and the oil companies and as little as they could for the people of British Columbia. They weren't reasonable as far as we were concerned.

Concern has been expressed that the legislation does nothing to guarantee the producers enough money to convince them that they should continue producing and should continue looking for new sources of natural gas. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the contracts that were designed to encourage that, and the corporation has already shown that when the need arises, when the need is shown, the corporation is willing to renegotiate these contracts. So certainly the corporation has shown by its action that it is willing to do what is necessary to guarantee the producers enough to keep them producing. This legislation is in no way intended to guarantee the producers anything than that they will not be out of pocket because of some discussion, some argument, or something that is going on between the two governments, or because of some decisions that Ottawa makes in its wisdom, or in its lack of wisdom.

It was not an ideological hang-up that induced this government, led by the Minister of Finance, to establish the B.C. natural gas corporation. It's not an ideological hang-up but a desire to obtain for the people of British Columbia a fair return for the natural gas that was being produced in the Province of British Columbia. It's a corporation, not an ideological hang-up, a corporation which has produced for the people of British Columbia in the relatively short time it has been operating, and has turned over to consolidated revenue, to date, a total of $88 million which before that corporation was established was not producing anything for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 129, British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 97, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 97; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 3901 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 97, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1975, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Bill 135, Mr. Speaker. We'll go back to Bill 127 as soon as the Minister arrives.

PUBLIC SERVICE
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 135; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, on page 19 of orders of the day, June 24. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 135, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill 136.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Hon. Provincial Secretary could explain to the committee the reason for the amendment to section 31. I find this to be a unique situation where the rate of compensation of a person on appointment to his position is at a rate prescribed by regulation, but where the employee who achieves that position is already in the public service, the rate of compensation upon his appointment shall be at a higher rate than he was receiving before his appointment.

There is a limitation in section 7: "but the higher rate shall not be greater than an amount equivalent to two increments in the salary range.... " I would wonder if the Provincial Secretary could indicate, first of all, why someone already in the public service has to receive a higher rate for the job than is posted for it, and why the limit of such increase could be as high as two increments above the salary range for the other position.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the amendment is that the salaries and their application are negotiable matters now. Under the Public Service Labour Relations Act it is not appropriate for the Public Service Act to legislate specific amounts. Therefore this amendment is provided to delete the reference as to how much the salary shall increase upon promotion because of the fact that we now have bargaining. The general section on promotions is no longer relevant. I think that answers both the questions of the Member.

Sections 7 through 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: 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 136, Public Service Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 140, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 140; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

[ Page 3902 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister give me a little more specific definition of the strata corporation? I think we need a little more explanation there on just what a strata corporation is supposed to be. There doesn't seem to be a very good explanation of it.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, it is the corporation which owns a strata-titled building, that is, the members of the corporation are the title holders to each of the strata lots within the strata corporation. In other words, it is not a business; it is a corporation which facilitates ownership of a defined space or strata lot in a multiple-dwelling situation which may be commercial or....

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am aware of that. But you are referring to a specific corporation here, not a group of corporations. That was my definition. You could have a group of strata corporations involved in this also.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, this doesn't refer to a group. This is an individual strata corporation.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I wanted to know.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 through 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. PHILLIPS: I presume that any property acquired by this section shall be transferred to the strata.... You are giving a strata corporation the right to acquire additional property. What is the purpose of this? Would it be if they wanted to enlarge their parking lot, or a group of the residents in a particular condominium unit wanted to build a swimming pool and the rest of them didn't? Just what are you trying to accomplish in this particular section?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, well this could facilitate many things, where a special group wants some certain type of facility. It should be borne in mind that in some strata corporations these might be part of one corporation but in separate buildings. Another case that could occur would be where some of the strata lots are commercial lots and the remainder are residential. If some of them were commercial lots they might wish to buy an adjoining piece of property for parking facilities, and not make it an encumbrance upon the residential membership. So that it facilitates for whatever specific interest a special group coming together to buy property.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Was this amendment requested by the strata title council? Did you put this in specifically, or was it requested by the council?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, my memory doesn't serve me too well on this because actually an amendment of the earlier section which repeals the previous section. It has really put it into slightly clearer language. I believe this was part of the input from there, but I would think possibly some of the members of the real property division of the Bar Association as well suggested some of these ideas, because they come in contact with this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were most of these amendments requested by the strata council?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: These particular amendments? No. Well, this gets into a rather wide ranging.... For instance, the municipality thing, that came from the municipalities. They requested that. There's been some input from strata council, there has been some from the industry as well, the building industry, and real property division of the Bar, I believe, also.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 16 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: 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 140, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 127.

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER
RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 127; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I repeat the questions to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams): "'corporation' means each

[ Page 3903 ]

corporation incorporated under the authority of this Act." I wonder if the Minister could advise the committee in what way he believes this legislation will cure the incorporation of B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd., which was obviously incorporated before the authority of this Act was even contemplated by this House.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to say that the revenues of British Columbia Steamships, 1975, Ltd., are such that it more than meets its cost currently. I am advised that there is no financing problem. Well, the capital costs, of course, were met out of the Greenbelt Fund.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister's answer — I hope that he was not being facetious in his response, because quite clearly the company that you incorporated back in the first week of May, under federal charter, was not incorporated under the authority of this legislation, and therefore if you don't need legislation to incorporate a company such as B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd., why are you asking for this authority at all?

I would pose another question. How many other companies have you incorporated in a clandestine manner? I was looking at the B.C. Gazette the other day, going through the list of companies trying to decide.... I saw one called Bob's Starlight Service Ltd. and I wonder.... (Laughter.) I wondered if you were going to have midnight booze cruises or something and this was another company to....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're open to all suggestions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But I shouldn't treat this in a light-hearted manner. The fact of the matter is that your company was incorporated before you even sought this legislative authority, and if it's not cured by this legislation, then why have it all? Because quite obviously you and members of your department can incorporate companies in Ottawa or British Columbia, there's nothing to stop you, the same as anybody else in this House can do. Then by some strange way that we don't know about, you can transfer your shares or indicate that you're holding them in trust for the provincial government. If this legislation is to regularize what you have done, I think we're entitled to an explanation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well certainly, one of the things that the legislation will do is see to it that major bills such as those for Burrard Dry-dock are paid, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if it is your ruling that these questions would be more appropriate under section 2, fair enough, but I wouldn't want to find out that the reverse is the case. A number of figures have been quoted in the press, but I don't believe the Legislature has heard from the Minister the total cost of the renovation and the refit for the Marguerite, which was undertaken by Burrard as he reminded us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be more appropriate under section 2.

MR. CURTIS: Is the Minister prepared to answer those questions under the other section?

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CURTIS: The question therefore with regard to the total cost, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not had the figures since the time that I announced outside this House that the figures we had were $1.1 million, as I recall, with respect to refit and renovations. I would have to take as notice the question in terms of confirming any more up-to-date figure.

MR. CURTIS: Could the Minister tell us what he and his department learned with respect to the life expectancy of this vessel? It was referred to properly as "an older ship," I believe built in 1949. I notice — I believe it's a much larger vessel — but the P & O liner Oronsay which is younger than that is on its way to shipbreakers. So what sort of life expectancy can the people of B.C. anticipate with regard to the Marguerite?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, all I can count on is my discussions with people at Burrard Dry-dock and with other experts in the shipping field. They're all extremely positive, that is the chief engineering people that I've discussed the matter with at Burrard indicated a considerable life, well beyond what I really would have anticipated myself.

I don't have any numbers, but again the former head of the Chamber of Commerce here in the city who is professionally in this business in terms of determining the life expectancy of ships and the quality of ships, indicates that it really is in excellent condition. So it appears that it's a considerable life, but how you really nail down numbers, I can't say.

MR. CURTIS: I may have other questions later, but I will just ask one more if I may, then defer to other Members. Would the Minister tell the

[ Page 3904 ]

committee, Mr. Chairman, the total number of employees that are serving in this operation, B.C. Steamships? That is the crew of the vessel and shore-side personnel. Then are there employees based in Seattle. Or have ticketing arrangements and other docking arrangements been put out on a fee-for-service basis?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The rough figures that I've had, Mr. Chairman, are approximately 120 with respect to shore staff and on-ship staff. I'm afraid I can't specifically say. Captain Tyson has carried out the arrangements in the port of Seattle. It's a minimum staffing there for those that visited it, the facility is certainly excellent and has been refurbished, but I'm not aware of the details in terms of whether it's a contractual relationship or simply an employee basis in Seattle, but it's a very small staffing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in committee this bill's a little difficult to discuss because just about all the bill is under section 2, so we will be guided by you from the chair.

But there are a host of questions one would like to ask stemming from the general principle we have outlined in second reading, that there is extremely wide discretion given to the Minister. I wonder if he could clarify some of the questions we have asked that give us cause for concern.

I am thinking, for example, about the subsection (2)(c) in which it says "to engage in any other business necessary or incidental to the operation of a shipping or ferry service." Can the Minister give us some kind of guidelines as to what other kinds of enterprises he has in mind?

Further down, in subsection (2)(e), again we come across the phrase "to take whatever action or do any thing necessary to operate a ferry and shipping service." I notice the word "shipping" comes into the terminology of section 2 on several occasions further down in the same subsection.

Could the Minister enlarge on that a little bit? We know what we mean by the Princess Marguerite ferry sailing between Victoria and Seattle, but I wonder why such a specific phrase as "shipping service" is involved. Would this enable the government to enter into some kind of merchant marine service, renting out ships or acquiring other ships that will transport goods rather than just a ferry service for people in cars?

I don't expect that is what is intended, but it certainly allows for that. The Premier, when he was formerly leader of the opposition, frequently spoke about British Columbia needing, or suggesting that it was a good idea if we got into, the merchant marine, and perhaps built our own merchant ships.

The next question relates of course to all this question of maps, charts, mapping services, publications, photographs to other departments of the government, Crown corporations, or the public. That is subsection (f) on page 2. I wonder what exactly that encompasses and why the Minister has that in the section.

Then in subsection (3), we have got reference again to a shipping service.

Further down in subsection (4), we have got this other general statement that "certain provisions of the Companies Act may not apply." Now is that just an escape hatch for the bill so that somewhere down the road if it is convenient to exclude certain provisions, so be it? But does the Minister have some specific provisions presently in mind which shall not apply to this bill?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether we should not seek these answers, because the rest of the bill relates to amendments that I have in the order paper regarding borrowing and ministerial responsibility. Maybe you would rather we didn't have a long harangue by one Member and got the answers to part of the questions first.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding subsection (c), Mr. Chairman, "to engage in any other business necessary or incidental to the operation of a shipping or ferry service," et cetera, et cetera. This is seen in relation to the matters already in hand and already underway in terms of both the dining salon on a ship, the newsstand on a ship, the bars, and those kinds of related activities.

Regarding subsection (e), shipping service, certainly one possibility might be freight, for example, which makes it somewhat broader. It is simply legal advice. There is no major merchant marine contemplated under that subsection.

Similarly, the statutes with respect to the United States of America relate simply to their basic requirements and such incorporations have already taken place.

The question of the Companies Act — again, it is simply the standard legal advice from legislative counsel in view of the fact that this is a Crown corporation.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just try quickly to continue, Mr. Chairman. One of the elements in the bill that we are all concerned about, I think, is the amount of money involved and the borrowing that can take place with or without approval, particularly in subsection 6(b), we find that money can be borrowed, "not exceeding $250,000, without the approval o f the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor," and that "an aggregate amount, not exceeding $10 million" can be borrowed "with the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

[ Page 3905 ]

I just feel that regardless of the sums involved, first of all, the legislation should clearly state that any borrowing under a bill such as this where there is so much discretion left to the Minister should require the authorization of the Minister. I think it should say that in the legislation. If the Minister is to have this much power and discretion under the bill, he should also have the responsibility of clearly authorizing the borrowing of funds.

It is for that reason that I have got that first amendment on the order paper after subsection 2(6)(b) to add subsection (c), namely: "All borrowings of any corporation under the authority of this Act must be authorized by the Minister."

The second amendment really follows from the same thought that if, in fact, the borrowing exceeds the legislated permissible amount, then the Minister is guilty of an offence. The present legislation before us states that any director who votes in favour of a bylaw which authorizes any corporation to exceed its borrowing powers is guilty of an offence. I just feel that if we're to have a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Minister, (1) the Minister must authorize borrowing, and (2) he's the person responsible if the borrowing powers in the bill are exceeding. That's my first amendment to this bill.

Continuing in the same theme, Mr. Chairman, the bill has been misinterpreted, I think, in the first stages at least by myself and others to the degree that it was not clear that $10 million was the maximum for the total of the corporations that might be involved in the bill. The word "aggregate" appears to make that clear. That plus the $250,000 that can be borrowed without authority, and the power of the cabinet to purchase shares to the value of $4 million, adds up to a total financial purchase or borrowing of $14,250,000. My amendment is to add after section 2(16), as 2(17), that: "The total aggregate moneys authorized under this Act, whether by way of purchase of shares, loans, grants, lease obligations, purchase agreements or mortgages, shall not exceed $14,250,000."

Now I suppose the Minister could say that that is already in the bill if you read the different sections and put them all together. But, once again, I think that the kind of amendment I've suggested just places very clearly in one small paragraph the total financial commitment that this government and this Minister is entitled to take under the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in second reading, the question of reporting to this House — and I'm sure all other Members in the opposition have talked on other bills in previous sessions about accountability and the need for the taxpayer to be sure that he gets the full financial picture of government ventures of every nature, whether it be B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail or this new venture involved under this legislation. I'm suggesting that the wording in the bill, Mr. Chairman, under subsection 12, uses the phrase that "each corporation shall report to the Minister respecting the affairs and business of the corporation and the financial condition of the corporation."

As I said earlier when we debated the B.C. Railway, there was a great deal of stress laid by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on the fact that, in giving accountability to the province and the people in the province, the reporting stated that the accounts had been audited according to accepted practices and under certain terms which gave the public a sense of reassurance that the figures as presented by the auditing were in fact to be believed and that the professional integrity of the auditing person would surely add confidence to the taxpayer of British Columbia that, in fact, these figures were valid, they had been inspected and they really meant what they appeared to mean.

I'm suggesting that here we have the government becoming more and more involved in other Crown corporations and the language in the bill does not really hold these corporations to the degree of accounting and reporting which I think has been shown to be wise, desirable and necessary if the B.C. Railroad experience is anything to go by. This is why I've added an amendment suggesting that after section 6(12) line 5, after the word "corporation" to add the following words: "authorized, acquired or incorporated under this Act in the form of a certified, audited financial statement in accordance with normal, accepted business and accounting practices." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he is moving all of these as one amendment or is he seeking to make three amendments?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to move three amendments. I think in particular the third amendment is perhaps the most important whereas the others to a degree are debatable. The second amendment really is summing up in one paragraph what you can assimilate from the bill reading it in two or three paragraphs. But I think that the third amendment, section 6(12) line 5, simply ties down in detail the kind of financial accounting which probably this Minister well means to give to this House. But once again I have to make the point that we may not always have this Minister and this cabinet, and there could be a tendency for a future government or a future Minister to wriggle around and squirm a little bit in the rather loose terminology of subsection 12. I think it should be read into the record.

Subsection 12 reads as follows: "Each corporation shall report to the Minister on the affairs and business

[ Page 3906 ]

of the corporation at such times and as often as he considers necessary, and shall report annually to the Minister respecting (a) the affairs and business of the corporation and (b) the financial condition of the corporation." I feel that that language is not strong enough or specific enough. In the light of the long debate we had with the B.C. Railway, I think that my third amendment would just give added teeth to the bill and would certainly assure us — the taxpayers and the Members of this House — that we will indeed have full accountability in the years ahead when this Minister or future Ministers come back and report to us the progress or otherwise of these various corporations and, indeed, their financial situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're considering the third part of the amendment. The Hon. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have some sympathy with the amendments, because in a broad sense it seems to me they don't go against the basic principles that we are endorsing in the bill. However, without full legal counsel and advice on the specifies, I can't accept them. But I might go further, though, and suggest that the government would seriously consider these matters over the adjournment period. If, on the basis of legal advice, there did not appear to be any serious problems, then we would contemplate such amendments at a later stage in this session.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a couple of observations here, Mr. Chairman. The Hon. Minister has not come clean with this House concerning certain aspects of this proposed legislation. He has heard from three-quarters of the House some very serious and some very well-supported evidence of the fact that there's not a need for this bill. It was raised by myself that under the PGE Act of 1912 there are powers to do that which is considered under the terms of this bill. It was raised by the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) that under the Railway Act there are powers, certainly, to take care of the carriage of the Marguerite and the Victoria harbour. As was raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) this afternoon, under what authority does the Minister still feel he is able to incorporate the federal company, or is he using this bill as a curative measure?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the problem with respect to other statutes is....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's clear.... (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no. There are opportunities in the Whistler basin that I mentioned that are hardly the activities of the B.C. Railway, for example, which we see as significant and equally as important as the Marguerite and the Inner Harbour. Again, the Inner Harbour is quite isolated from the British Columbia Railway. In addition, the British Columbia Railway does not have the authority to act as a passenger carrier with respect to the Port of Seattle, for example. So this statute, in fact, was necessary for the purposes of the Marguerite and certainly with respect to these other opportunities that we see.

MR. GARDOM: I would rather differ with the Minister's interpretation as far as the Marguerite is concerned, because it would seem to me that there is abundant authority both within the PGE and the Railway Act for the operation of the Marguerite and the maintenance of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Transit Act!

MR. GARDOM: And the Transit Act, as my friend also mentions here. Also the maintenance and restoration plans that are given consideration for the Victoria harbour....

But I ask the Minister this question: does he feel that this bill he is now presenting to us, Bill 127, is to be a curative procedure for this federal company that he's already caused to be incorporated?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly think the statute is the right approach, Mr. Chairman; that's why the government has endorsed it. I might also say, regarding the B.C. Rail or the PGE, that again federal incorporation is a factor. The PGE is, of course, a provincially incorporated railway.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, with every respect, the Minister did not respond to the question. Is he going to run the Marguerite under this existing federal company that he's already incorporated or does he plan to use Bill 127 for that purpose?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The expectation is that the present corporation would continue, but I always defer to good legal advice.

MR. GARDOM: I draw to the attention of the Minister that perhaps, again, over his dinner hour.... There doesn't seem to be any retroactive provision — which we're not in favour of — within this bill to encompass the company that he's already

[ Page 3907 ]

caused to be incorporated.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, the Minister really hasn't answered any of the questions. The only conclusion we can come to is that the reason he can't use the other Acts is that he doesn't have the power under those Acts; they're vested under some other Minister.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Railway Act has been mentioned and other Acts have been mentioned. I'd just like to refer the House to an Act that we passed, over the objection of the opposition, I might add, in 1974 — the Transit Services Act — which allows just about anything to happen.

All the powers that are necessary for anything that the Minister might want to do — "purchase or otherwise, acquire motor vehicles, lines of buses, motor coaches and ferries and operate, maintain, control, and manage such motor vehicles, buses, motorcoaches, ferries for the purposes of carrying on the business of a public passenger transportation system." Those are pretty specific powers.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: It also goes on, Mr. Chairman, to allow the government to "construct and maintain buildings and other structures for the purposes of this Act, including without limiting the generalities of the foregoing buildings and structures for storage and maintenance" and things, but also for "passenger depots, waiting-rooms, restaurants, hotels and other facilities for the comfort and convenience of passengers."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all in one?

MR. McCLELLAND: It's all in the Transit Services Act passed in 1974 by this House, but under another Minister.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right; he doesn't administer this Act. This is under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: We dealt with a bill in this House just a few moments ago, the Whistler resort Act, in which upon the one hand, under another Minister again, we allow the community to a large degree to predetermine its own destiny and to plan for its own future. Yet now we are asked to pass a bill which would seem to give this Minister the power to overrule the very municipality we're just about to set up. It has the opportunity to plan for its community, but the Minister can come along under this bill with one of his new corporations and say: "Sorry folks, I don't like those plans; I'm doing the planning for this community."

I really think that that's the only reason for this bill: to give that Minister more power and to allow him to be the super tsar of everything that happens in British Columbia, even more than he is now.

The Transit Services Act also provides, Mr. Chairman, another important feature, and that is that the money appropriated for the needs of that Act come with the approval of the Legislative Assembly. I think that's an important consideration which isn't in this bill, because the Legislative Assembly is completely cut out of this bill, and that Minister is allowed to borrow money for any of his corporations without ever referring it to the people in this Legislative Assembly. I think that that's a pretty dangerous power to give that Minister or any other Minister.

The Minister, Mr. Chairman, has really slipped around this business of aggregate amounts. I think that this is a pretty tricky bill in that connection. Sure, the bill says that the Minister may borrow $250,000 without ever going to see anybody and an aggregate amount not exceeding $10 million for all the Crown Corporations. But if we look further down the list in subsection 13, Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may on behalf of the Crown purchase shares up to $4 million in the aggregate, advance money to the corporation for temporary or long-term purposes, make temporary loans to the corporation upon such security and upon such terms and conditions as he may approve.

Now those provisions in (b) and (c) at least, Mr. Chairman, are subject to the limitation of the aggregate amount of $10 million, but in (d), (e) and (f) of that subsection the Minister is allowed to guarantee on behalf of the government repayment of principal and interest in the performance of any obligation for the payment of money. And it goes on with other conditions:

"...make grants to the corporation to carry out programmes and projects relating to land planning, development, and use, Crown land development and disposition, or any other purpose" — any other purpose, Mr. Chairman — "for which the corporation is incorporated under this section and pay to the corporation fees for its services rendered to the government or a department...." No limitation in the aggregate in any of those sections, Mr. Chairman, and that government could be paying fees — till they were coming out of our ears — for anything.

[ Page 3908 ]

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, sure you could. It's a hole big enough to drive the Marguerite through, that's for darned sure. No limitation in the aggregate and, Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest that that gives the opportunity for a boondoggle of the highest order.

Direct subsidies by this government to any of these Crown corporations first of all, without any reference to the Legislative Assembly — and in many instances, Mr. Chairman, perhaps not even reference to their cabinet. But it's a horrifying bill in that respect, and it's a blank cheque if there ever was a blank cheque, Mr. Chairman, and that Minister can't slide out by referring to the section which limits the aggregate, because there is no limit on any of those sections, and the door's open to the public vault for any of his corporations that he may wish to bring into operation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, an amendment that I'd like to propose to the Minister would be in the section dealing with borrowing — that's section 2(6)(b) — where you talk about "the corporation or corporations may borrow money in an aggregate amount not exceeding $250,000 without the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and, in addition, may borrow money in an aggregate amount not exceeding $10 million with the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

I would like to move that we delete the words "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" wherever they occur, thus having the loan total the same but merely having the Legislature responsible rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

A companion amendment to that — and it's a point raised by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — on subsection (13)(b) of this section 4A where it states: "advance money to the corporation for temporary or long-term purposes upon such terms and conditions as he may approve." Well, the words "long-term" are the words which worry me, and I think they worry the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). The fact is, if you have your aggregate amount up in section 6(b) it makes no sense at all to put in this loophole down in 13(b). Therefore I would recommend that we delete the words "long-term". If there are temporary problems, if there is a need for short-term loans, temporary loans, fine, let them be made. But when it comes to long-term borrowing, I think it should be governed by the provisions of 6(b) as I propose, and also, of course, by the Legislature itself.

So I would move those two amendments, one at a time, I guess, Mr. Chairman. They are companion amendments, but they would tend to offset some of the wide, sweeping powers that we find in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, yes — awesome. That's the word I forgot.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Of course, the intent is clear in section (b) in terms of giving some flexibility in terms of either the cabinet or the Legislature, and that is not acceptable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why it is not acceptable. We're here, according to the Premier, as full-time MLAs. The House sits for months and months and months. Who knows, we may sit yet for months and months and months. There is absolutely no reason to give this power to the cabinet when the Legislature could equally well grant the loan totals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has given absolutely no reason except that it is, to him, unacceptable. He has given no reason apart from that, and that is not a reason at all.

The second amendment with respect to the long-term loan, he didn't even touch upon. It seems pointless to put in here that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council allowing long-term loans...which we might well find the base of the provisions of section (1)(b).

So I wonder whether the Minister could consider this a little more charitably, a little more sympathetically, a little more understandingly. After all, a minor amendment of this nature hardly makes any change at all, except to give Members of the Legislature some minor control over the borrowing. I'm sure that this Minister, who in the past has been a great believer in the need to have the Legislature control the executive, now that he has got a many-thousand horsepower ship to run into the dock, I hope he won't allow those heady feelings of power to overwhelm his previous belief in the importance of the Legislature retaining control when it comes to borrowing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I can understand the feelings of the Hon. Member for Victoria, but the flexibility, I think, is desirable. Again, the Inner Harbour has considerable potential and there might well be improvements contemplated that would justify some long-term arrangement with the Crown in terms of amenities in the Inner Harbour.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No? Well, there might well be such good opportunities and we shouldn't

[ Page 3909 ]

forgo these great opportunities in the Member's own riding. I would have thought he would endorse such a proposal because of the opportunity and benefits for his constituents and the visitors to the capital city.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted, as the Member for Victoria, to come to this Legislature and congratulate the Minister when he comes up with some ingenious scheme to enhance the beauty of the Inner Harbour. He described the whole process as being elastic. I wonder whether that was the attitude of Captain Crunch over there from Esquimalt who hit the dock. He thought the whole thing was a little too elastic and hit the dock.

Nevertheless, the Minister....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Would you use that term against the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he's actually more of a submarine and torpedo than he is a surface vessel. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, the Minister could easily come to the Legislature and could easily hear words of praise from the Member for Victoria for some great scheme for the beautification of the Inner Harbour.

Now he wouldn't want to forgo that opportunity because words of praise are rare for this Minister, and I may never find myself convinced that he requires any. But there is the opportunity, if he has to come to the Legislature, to explain to us these great schemes for beautification. He may yet get a unanimous vote if he has a good scheme. But for him to use the cabinet in this way, to do it all secretly in an almost underhand manner by sneaking it in, why no one would know whether this was a good scheme or not, and the praise the Minister might deserve might never come his way.

So I think, if the Minister thinks about this in a more personal sense, he will realize that making the Legislature responsible for borrowing is a very good idea, far superior to having just the cabinet.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Member's feelings about the cabinet and my own are quite different.

First amendment negatived.

Second amendment negatived.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, when the Minister was answering a question from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) as to why this Act was required when the corporation was already in existence, the Minister gave the answer that it would, among other things, permit the payment of major bills such as Burrard Drydock.

What I would like to ask the Minister is: what non-major bills were paid without the authority of this kind of corporation? What are the approximate amounts and dates that were paid before any legislative authority existed? I would hope the Minister is going to answer that because it is a pretty important thing. I would have thought he would have been glad to have a chance to respond to the charges that were made about illegal payments and that kind of thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There were some relatively small, short-term payments made in terms of simply being able to provide change on the opening days of the operation, for example. There were problems, for example, with Americans not accepting $2 bills, and some funding on a minor scale was provided with respect to that. It is my understanding that the total amounts in aggregate ranged up to $39,000, and that all of the wages and current expenses are being met out of operating revenue.

MR. GIBSON: These $39,000 amounts are exactly what I have been referring to recently as illegal payments. I just asked for confirmation from the Minister that these are the amounts that were reimbursed to the comptroller-general by a cheque — I think it was on or about June 5 — in that vicinity.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That amount was repaid out of operating revenue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Finally we have confirmation of that, Mr. Chairman.

I have one more question. I wonder if the Minister could outline to this House the terms of the trust arrangement. There may be more than one trust, I am not sure, but I would like to know about any trust arrangement that might exist between the owners of the federally chartered company, namely the directors, and the government, and any relationship that might exist between the owner of the vessel, the good ship Princess Marguerite — which I believe is the Crown, represented by R.M. Strachan, prop. — and B.C. Steamships (1975) Ltd.

MR. CURTIS: I was waiting to see if the Minister was going to answer the questions from the Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is the custom that the Minister may answer either all at once or one by one, or whatever he chooses.

MR. CURTIS: When we step back tomorrow and

[ Page 3910 ]

analyse the transcript of today's discussion, I think we have had, really, very little new information from the Minister with regard to the bill and with regard to the Princess Marguerite. I wonder if the Minister would please indicate to the committee what other corporations have been established.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) said that he had been looking through the British Columbia Gazette and thought that he might have hit one, and we laughed about that. But what else has been established in anticipation of the passage of Bill 127? Could we please have the names of the corporations or the companies? Would the Minister care to answer that one now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. The incorporations are: British Columbia Steamship Co. (1975) Ltd., federally incorporated, which I think most Members are aware of; and British Columbia Steamship Co. Inc. in Washington State.

MR. CURTIS: Now turning to the Inner Harbour land, Mr. Chairman, which is certainly part of this section or is covered by this section. I would refer you to section 2(4A)(13)(b) which specifically permits the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to make grants to the corporation to carry out programmes and projects relating to land planning, development and use, Crown land development and disposition, or any other purpose for which the corporation is incorporated under this section.

In discussing the estimates of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) this morning in what I felt was one of the better discussions of the past many weeks, we learned from that Minister his concern about the difficulties in co-coordinating governmental approach to Inner Harbour land, the CIDC, the Department of Municipal Affairs, the Department of Public Works and the department for which this Minister is responsible. One of the criticisms which has been leveled at this Minister with regard to the Inner Harbour, in reference to the former Marathon CPR property and the former Reid property, has been his and his department's lack of communication with the City of Victoria.

If the Minister can correct me, I will happily accept the correction, but I am told that the last meeting between this Minister and the city as such, the city council in Victoria, or representatives of the city council, was sometime late last summer.

With passage of this bill, what precisely can we expect from the Minister in terms of consultation with not only other departments of government, but the City of Victoria, to work out the frustrations and difficulties which have been experienced for quite some time? I am also reminded of an advertisement which the members of the 1974 city council felt compelled to purchase in the two daily newspapers in Victoria in early June of last year. I don't think they used city funds to advertise the position with regard to the Reid Centre, but rather they all contributed.

So we've seen for at least a year, if not more months than that, some difficulty on the outside in reaching this Minister and sitting down across the table and discussing with him how it all fits together, how it will all come together in the Inner Harbour.

I would very much appreciate, and I think a number of us here and outside would appreciate, hearing from the Minister just where he will go from here with respect to these lands.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it would of course be premature to proceed in view of the strong arguments that the opposition has made. It would be most premature to proceed in terms of this incorporated company and the City of Victoria. Good heavens! It would fly in the face of everything you've been saying for the last several weeks, and that would be quite wrong. But of course there were meetings with the city council, with the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet, and subsequent to that there were staff meetings between provincial staff people and civic staff people as well in terms of follow-up work. So those avenues have been established.

As you indicated, the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) indicated some of his activities in that regard. Of course, the Minister of Public Works and his staff are involved on a regular on-going basis with the city staff. But we're very receptive to more meetings and continuing meetings once this company in underway. There should be intensive meetings with both the city and various other interest groups from the Chamber of Commerce — who have been most helpful and useful with respect to the Marguerite operation itself — the Marguerite Advisory Committee and the chairman of the Marguerite Advisory Committee and the Community Planning Association in the community, who all have, I think, something to offer with respect to this real opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return to a question I asked earlier. The Marguerite is a public asset now, having been acquired with the greenbelt fund. I gather it is registered in the name of the Crown provincial, and is being operated at present by a private company with five directors who are two MLAs and three civil servants.

What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is what are the agreements, if any, between the government and this private company, and the declarations of trust, if any, between the directors and the government, or whoever, which provide and ensure that any benefits of operating this vessel shall

[ Page 3911 ]

redound to the public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I might read the declaration of trust, Mr. Chairman, which reads as follows:

"I hereby acknowledge that I hold certificates number I (or whatever) for one common share of the capital stock of British Columbia Steamship Co., 1975 Ltd. in trust for Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia. Such share was purchased with money of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia, and all dividends, profits and advantages accruing thereon, or arising there from, are, and shall be held by me and my legal representative for the use, benefit, and advantage of Her Majesty and Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia. On demand, I agree to transfer the said share to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia, or to the nominee of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia, and to account to Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia for all dividends, profits and advantages received by me from the said share, in witness whereof I have hereto set my hand and seal, 26th day of May, 1975."

MR. GIBSON: Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's very helpful. I'd just now ask if there's an agreement, if there's any kind of an agreement between B.C. Steamships and the government which provides for the terms and conditions of the use of the vessel by B.C. Steamships, 1975?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of any, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Under the authority of this legislation, the Minister is authorized to proceed with incorporation for the purposes of planning, development and management of Crown lands. The Minister pointed out in opening second reading that he was going to bring the Lands Department into the 20th century by the use of this corporate vehicle. Now it's obvious that we have the steamship company incorporated in Ottawa and we have the steamship company incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington.

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

I would like to have the Minister advise the House in what way he believes that some other corporate organization initiated by him is going to achieve the other and probably the major purpose of this legislation, to handle Crown land.

In response to questions from the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) he pointed out that with regard to the Reid property in Victoria harbour, there is involvement with the Department of Public Works and other agencies of government as well as the City of Victoria. I'm concerned to know in what way the Minister is going to exercise influence over the Crown lands of this province through this corporation, which surely must have the result of cutting across the responsibilities of other departments of government.

Why is it not possible for the Minister to handle the planning, development and management of Crown land within the scope of his own department? Why does he have to have some other vehicle for this purpose?

He obviously is going to run into conflicts in the Whistler area with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). He mentioned, talking in the second reading debate, about the Lost Lake area which is a recreation area, I understand to be under the control of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. How is this corporation going to improve that situation and make it function any differently?

Specifically, is he talking about a corporation controlled by him, whereby he's going to become the principal landlord with respect to all Crown lands in the province? Is he going to dictate the way in which those Crown lands may be improved and developed? If that's to be the case then I don't know why we need this corporation because the legislation, the Land Act and the departmental legislation already gives him the supreme authority that he currently needs.

I would like to know what scheme this Minister has, using this corporate device. Surely nothing is more supreme in this province than a department of government acting under the direct authority of the Legislature. Why do we have to add some other strange organization? Is the Minister trying to cut out in some way the authority of the civil service? I hope the Minister will respond.

Is he suggesting that the Government of the Province of British Columbia, functioning through the Department of Lands and its Minister is not able to control the use of Crown lands? Is this what he suggests?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You don't suggest that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, if you don't suggest that I have to conclude that there is some covert reason for you to move in this way. The Minister has

[ Page 3912 ]

never been one to shrink from criticizing the activities of corporate organizations and here we see him adopting the very same technique. If he's not going to cut out any of the public service, if the Lands Department as currently established can do all of the things it is required to do with respect to the planning, development and management of Crown lands then why is this included in this legislation at all?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose, in a sense, Mr. Chairman, it's a kind of conversion with respect to the advantages of the corporate structure. There do appear to be advantages with respect to some aspects of the Crown lands, and Whistler's certainly one.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Name one.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the considerable flexibility. The corporation is a creative instrument and I'm sure the Member for West Vancouver would feel that way in terms of his own philosophic views of the world, and to prevent this kind of creative instrument from being used in the public sector would seem to me to fly in the face of so many of the things that the Member has stood for throughout the years.

The opportunities at Whistler are considerable. Lost Lake itself certainly will be preserved and managed by the Department of Recreation and Conservation. But the town centre nearby is something else again. That would relate to probably numerous lifts that in turn would tie in with the lifts already developed by the Garibaldi Lifts people on the other side of Blackcomb Mountain.

So we have a unique opportunity in that basin in terms of linking ski lifts and tying Blackcomb development into Whistler development and a major town centre or alpine village at least near Lost Lake and tied to the ends of these ski lifts. So it's a tremendous development opportunity and the corporate structure simply seemed to us to be the best means of handling that opportunity.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for that candid insight into where he intends to go with regard to Whistler, and that's obvious to anybody who looks at the development potential for that area. Yes, there has to be a town centre. Yes, there have to be new lifts on Blackcomb. Yes, those lifts can co-ordinate with the existing lift facilities on Whistler Mountain, but that still doesn't indicate why the corporate vehicle is needed.

The Minister says that surely I would be in favour of something creative, and there's no question about that. Certainly I'm in favour of flexibility, but is the Minister saying that his department is so inflexible that they can't accomplish these things without establishing a corporation in which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would be president and chief executive officer and his Deputy Minister would be vice-president and some other individual not in the public service of British Columbia would hold other functions and be on the board of directors.

I know his department is already doing these things. His department already has members of their staff in the Whistler area conducting studies, doing planning and ascertaining exactly how the town centre in Blackcomb and related areas should be planned and developed. Now if that's currently going on today, then surely when those plans become fixed and satisfactory to the Minister and the Deputy Minister, with all their skill in planning — a great skill that he's held in such high acclaim for in this province....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Once all those matters have become fixed...

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Play it again, Sam.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...surely it's simply a matter of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources making these available and asking for people to submit tenders to construct and operate these facilities under a lease arrangement which will ensure that the government of British Columbia will get its proper return from those enterprises on a short- or a long-term basis.

Now the department can already to those things. Why do you have to have a company? Is it to circumvent the rigid bureaucracy which has built up in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: One of the considerations is whether we needed Bill 127 at all for the purchase and operation of the Marguerite. If I understand the Minister correctly, he said that the reason we needed a federally incorporated company, B.C. Steamships, and a Washington State incorporated company was because the Marguerite would be crossing into international waters. Now is that correct?

What I would like to know is: why do we need Bill 127 to own those shares when already we have a British Columbia Ferry Authority which operates a series of ferries and ships of various sizes for the movement of passengers and vehicles in this province? In section 5, in the purposes of the British Columbia Ferry Authority Act, it says:

[ Page 3913 ]

"Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, the authority is established for the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, purchasing, maintaining, acquiring and operating toll highways and toll bridges in the province, and of purchasing and acquiring shares and other securities of corporations owning such toll highways and toll bridges and the whole or any part of such assets."

Now the B.C. Ferry Authority has the power to acquire shares so why could not the British Columbia Ferry Authority then have been the incorporating shareholder for both the federally incorporated company and the Washington State company? Why could not the B.C. Ferry Authority, which is already operating and managing a fleet of ships on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, been used as the continuing authority to supply both the management and the ownership for the new companies?

Obviously within the framework of the Act it has the authority to purchase or acquire shares in such companies, and yet we see the Princess Marguerite incorporated by independent shareholders under trust agreements later transferred. Yet within the framework of this province we already have operating ferries for both passenger and vehicle service an authority that could have incorporated both of those companies, that could have been the principle shareholder, that already had the expert management, both from the administrative level and the operational level, to run ships on behalf of the people of the province.

Now it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that here we have a duplication of services. Here we have a very cumbersome way of setting up a new company to operate a single ship when already we have an authority that has served this province for some years and has expanded from time to time in various types of water-moving vessel. Now it could have acted under its own authority, because further in its Act it says under section 9: "The authority on behalf of Her Majesty in the right of the province may contract in its corporate name without specific reference to Her Majesty." Now obviously then the B.C. Ferry Authority had the power to acquire shares in its own name, had the authority to act in its contract in its own corporate name.

It seems ridiculous to me, just for the sake of expanding the powers of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, that we ignore the very vehicle that was set up in this province to operate ships and ferries, the very authority that over the years has built up a strong management team and a strong operational team. We have a duplication of services; we have an unclear picture of whether, this company being brought in the way it was, it was incorporated correctly. Yet all of the time we've had the vehicle available. I wonder why.

Is there some reason that the B.C. Ferry Authority is unacceptable to the Minister for running the Marguerite? Is there a problem with which union is certified for the operation of the ship? Why do we have to have the duplication of service? Was it just that they missed the fact that the ferry authority had this power or was it that they were unwilling to entrust the operation of the Marguerite to the Transport Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who is having so many difficulties with other Crown corporations?

Right now, Mr. Chairman, it's no wonder that this Legislature is suspicious that perhaps this Act, under the guise of buying and operating the Marguerite, is transferring to this Minister many, many powers of incorporation to incorporate Crown corporations, because the very authority that this province has had could have purchased the shares and could have been the incorporating authority for the purchase of the Marguerite and for setting up both B.C. Steamships (1975) Ltd. on a federal basis and, again, a company in Washington State.

I wish the Minister would clarify why this was rejected.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we had the advice of various counsel in this regard. We had the advice of Freeman and Co. of Vancouver; the advice of Herridge, Tolmie and Co. In Ottawa; Ryan, Bush, Swanson and Hendall of Seattle; Acton, Laughton and Alexander of Victoria, et cetera. Rather than the casual fashion with respect to the way we went about incorporating and preparing this legislation, in fact we went to several authorities. The conclusion of our legal counsel was that a statute of this nature was, in fact, necessary. That was the result of probably two months' work.

MR. BENNETT: They specifically said that it couldn't be set up within....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly within the existing statutes, no. That's my understanding of our legal advice, that in terms of the B.C. Ferry Authority they could not, in fact, extend to the degree that we would with respect to the Marguerite in this statute.

But I should say in addition, of course, that the statute does cover these other areas. So it isn't simply just the Marguerite, as I've indicated all along. It's the rehabilitation of the Inner Harbour, the CPR lands, the Reid lands and the Whistler lands. So again, the B.C. Ferry Authority would not be a reasonable instrument for developing the Whistler recreation area, for example. That just doesn't make sense.

In terms of the broad argument of the Leader of the Opposition, I always thought that people on the other side were in favour of competition. Maybe it's just too much for the opposition to understand that public corporations might compete as well. They're

[ Page 3914 ]

the ones who argue about the advantages of competition within the system. All of a sudden, when we have two Crown entities operating in this field, it disturbs them, They talk about bigness, integration, co-ordination and all these other things. But I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition was all in favour of competition and seeing to it that we got the most for our dollar. Having these different effective instruments might well be the means of achieving the goals that I thought the Member so loudly hailed.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this is the first indication I have that the Marguerite is going to compete directly with B.C. Ferries on their routes. I thought it was just going to run to Seattle. Competition on different routes isn't competition; you just have an additional existing ferry authority that isn't competing. It isn't competing in the same market. If that's his definition of competition — to own a boat — that's not competition; that's an additional boat owner who serves a different market. It's not competing, not competing at all. That's a ridiculous argument. It's not competing with B.C. Ferries.

What the Minister is saying, though, is that the British Columbia Ferry Authority shouldn't operate a town site in Whistler. Nobody is suggesting it should. What we're saying is: why was the Marguerite tossed in, being operated by an authority that was going to run a town at Whistler? You already have the B.C. Ferry Authority....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: On legal counsel. I haven't understood whether legal counsel specifically said that the B.C. Ferry Authority didn't have the right to purchase shares, such as it indicates in section 5.... Why couldn't it be amended to run the Marguerite and why couldn't you have a separate, specific area to deal with town site development?

You are right that land development and ferries don't mix. So it is defeating your own argument for the reason for Bill 127. The B.C. Ferry Authority should be running the ship. It is not competition. It is operating a route that might be ancillary to the service, might be served well by the present administration. We wouldn't have a duplication of administrative services. It certainly isn't providing competition. As the Minister suggested, it is not serving the same route. I don't see the Marguerite running to Saltspring Island or other areas. I see it running to Seattle where the British Columbia Ferry system obviously does not now go.

It would appear to me that it is a slap in the face for the management of the B.C. Ferries to not consider them to operate the Marguerite and also to effect ownership. If section 5 under the British Columbia Ferry Authority Act does not allow the ownership and I suggest it does, I bow to the legal counsel the Minister got, the Act looks very easy to bring in an amendment to bring the Marguerite under both its ownership and its operation. I think that's the important thing.

The Minister was very correct when he said the ownership of the ferry doesn't necessarily go with land development. It certainly doesn't. That's why we worry about Bill 127 that deals with ferries and land development and any other Crown corporation the Minister so wishes to set up. The Marguerite is a very confusing part of a very confusing picture that surrounds this bill and yet it shouldn't be, because the solution is simple: operate the Marguerite under the B.C. Ferry Authority. And if you need government intervention from the land, over and above the legislation we passed about incorporating the town site of Whistler — which I seem to find may be incompatible, I don't know — then of course you could bring in a different, single authority. But they don't seem to mix here; it is like oil and water.

I would like to know if there is some other reason why the British Columbia Ferry Authority wouldn't operate the Marguerite. Is there a problem with union certification in travelling to an international port?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we certainly did see a relationship between land development and the Princess Marguerite.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, no, but we certainly saw it here. That's the problem. The former landowner, the CPR, was ready to abandon her and the government wouldn't buy that. We thought it was too important to the City of Victoria, to southern Vancouver Island and the people of the northwest. We in effect had to do, ourselves, what Confederation promised to do. Confederation promised a service to Olympia on a regular basis. Confederation promised service to San Francisco on a regular basis, and we are still waiting for the federal end of the terms of Confederation. We haven't even got that.

So we've had to sort of carry on the federal role with respect to this. We are doing it through this modest little instrument, the British Columbia Steamships (1975) Ltd. We don't want to see this port of Victoria abandoned again. We want to see the Princess Marguerite tied to the port of Victoria. We want to see the CPR lands enhanced. We want to see the Marguerite's activities enhanced. We want to see them all fit together for the benefit of the business community and the people of greater Victoria and southern Vancouver Island. We don't want to see the city cut loose from this important cord again. This is going to see to it that this great city goes on to

[ Page 3915 ]

greater heights, because we care about the land and the ship.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two for the Minister with regard to section 2. When he introduced the bill he gave us this sort of sugar-sweet presentation about the modest little bill. He told us about the B.C. Hydro Act and what a terrible, ugly Act that was, and how the press had paid no attention and how it sort of just slipped by the Legislature on a spring afternoon when the birds were singing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Welcome back, Pat.

MR. McGEER: I was here during the debate, and it struck me as a departure from my memory at least. We found that there had been strong opposition to the bill — not the whole bill. The NDP voted in favour of it, but the very section that he said was all right was the section that his own party had vigorously opposed.

The Speaker called it "Henry VIII legislation." That wasn't the Speaker of the day. That was the then Member for Burnaby (Hon. Mr. Dowding). So what the Minister says and what happened are different things, and what the Minister tells us now and what we may anticipate might happen I'm sure are different things.

When we asked the Minister about the various corporations that were permitted under this Act, he said: "No, no, read section 1; there is only one corporation." Then you read on to section 2: "...may incorporate a company." Later sections say "each company incorporated." But the Minister said that there was no problem with that; we just couldn't read properly. It was as easy as one, two, three.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. McGEER: There was one company incorporated three times. I don't really think it is as easy as one, two, three. I think there is a fair amount of legislative bafflegab in this bill and that when you cut through it, there are any numbers of corporations, but initially $10 million worth. Who knows what amendment might be slipped through to the statute law amendment Act on the last day of some future session, making it $50 million or whatever the Minister might then happen to think appropriate as his pocket money?

MR CHAIRMAN: That is not in section 2, Mr. Member. Would you stick to section 2, please?

MR. McGEER: No, but....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Perish the thought.

MR. McGEER: The specific thing about section 2 is: I want to ask the Minister precisely how many corporations we have?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You should attend more often.

MR. McGEER: What are the names of those corporations? Will the Minister give us a flat guarantee that whatever corporations he names now will be the only corporations ever to be incorporated under this Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question has been asked and answered, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It was while you were up in the air.

MR. McGEER: What was the undertaking?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Welcome back. It is nice to see the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey back from the world of academe.

MR. McGEER: It is nice to be here. (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is certainly a change.

I think that the previous answers were clear, that there has been the federal company incorporated, British Columbia Steamships (1975) Ltd., and the Washington State corporation, British Columbia Steamships Inc. We anticipate incorporating an additional provincial corporation. That is what we see at this stage, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McGEER: What is the name of the provincial corporation? What will be the extent of its activities? Will there be one and only one provincial corporation named even under this Act?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe we should have a contest. I don't like the name that has been suggested. I am sure that we might well come up with some decent alternative. The statute however, again for the benefit of the good doctor, is quite clear. If he reads section 2(l) he will see that it refers to "a company" which means that only one company can be incorporated at the provincial level, and that is all we anticipate.

MR. McGEER: I just want to pursue this for one more minute. How will the provincial company, incorporated under the Companies Act, differ in its corporate structure and activities from the company incorporated in Washington State and the company incorporated federally? How do these differ and how will the makeup of the directors and so on differ?

[ Page 3916 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right. The Washington company differs considerably, Mr. Chairman, because it was mainly incorporated in relation to Washington State liquor laws. I am sure that is of no interest in the Whistler basin whatsoever, despite the size of the basin.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The company that will be incorporated provincially will, of course, be involved beyond the steamship sector — in the development of land in the Inner Harbour and in the development of land in the Whistler basin. I think that has been covered many times in previous debates that the Hon. Member was unable to attend.

MR. CURTIS: It is unfortunate that this will be our last opportunity, whenever committee debate is concluded on this, for quite some time to discuss the operation of the Princess Marguerite and to determine precisely how it is doing.

I noted earlier this afternoon when the Minister indicated that it was paying its way, he obviously wasn't including the capital costs and the costs of the renovation. He nods his head in agreement on that. I wonder if he could indicate to the committee the anticipated monthly payroll of the total operation of the British Columbia Steamship Co. Ltd., British Columbia Steamship Co. Inc. and so on — the total Princess Marguerite operation in full summer service doing the Seattle and Port Angeles run. What is the figure for that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have asked for those figures, Mr. Chairman, and I don't have them yet in detail.

MR. CURTIS: Guess.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I don't want to guess. But you have the basic staff numbers, and you can do some arithmetic, I suppose, in relation to those. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands is concerned about the public being informed about the activities under this statute, and informed with respect to the Princess Marguerite.

I would like to assure the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands, and especially in the capital region as to precisely the position that the opposition took in terms of voting on this bill. We will go to great efforts to see to it that the public is fully and amply informed about this great enterprise that the public has now embarked upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CURTIS: I'm under whelmed (laughter) with the Minister's statement. There's a great difference, Mr. Chairman, you will agree, I'm sure, between receiving the answers the Minister may want to give and asking the questions which have to be asked, and I think we won't lose sight of that. We can wait for press release number 32A, Volume B, but it may not tell us what we need to know.

With respect to the Minister's suggestion that through arithmetic we can put all the numbers together, we can't. He indicated that there are approximately 120 people but that wasn't the question. What is the monthly payroll cost of operating the vessel in full summer service doing the afternoon run? He said that he can't provide that. Well, I'm disappointed.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I think that the kind of basic information, Mr. Chairman, I've given the House before and the public is that its current operating revenue is meeting current operating expenses.

Now that's significant because we have not yet moved into the peak season which is when school ends and people are free after the beginning of July. So one can reasonably anticipate a fairly good situation with respect to the operational costs and operational revenues of the Marguerite — no mean achievement indeed given the time problems we had and the job we had to do in terms of crewing the ship and improving and renovating the ship as well.

MR. CURTIS: Could the Minister indicate which union groups are involved in the operation of the vessel?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Three.

MR. CURTIS: And I have another question....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Seamen's International Union, Mr. Chairman. The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Operators and the Masters' Guild.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Seafarer's International Union?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, okay.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Liberals would be more familiar than myself. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: Well, that may or may not be the case. (Laughter.) I wonder if the Minister, Mr. Chairman, could tell us what commitments....

[ Page 3917 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the Member for Esquimalt.

MR. CURTIS: He's not in his seat. What commitments have been made or what will need to be made in Seattle regarding berthing of the vessel? There was a statement much earlier in the year indicating that perhaps there was a major capital expense coming up on the horizon in Seattle.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we have the option, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding the port of Seattle has agreed that the present facilities are excellent considering the fact that they are only to be used this year. For those that have been to Seattle it's a good kind of port of entry for Victoria. They really have done a fine job in renovating the old dock.

We have agreement with the port of Seattle that the main port of Seattle headquarters and new major pier facility will be the terminus for the Princess Marguerite. That's already agreed and that's advantageous to the port of Seattle and advantageous to us.

What remains to be seen is the question of automobile access and automobile use of the ferry, We still have time to make that decision, that is whether additional capital expenditure should be made in the new port of Seattle dock or whether we should forgo automobile service on the Marguerite. That's the decision that I would think probably would have to be made this fall.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, speaking of the fall, can the Minister inform the committee what consideration is being given to fall and winter use of the vessel in the existing operation Victoria — Seattle, or possibly elsewhere?

Then another question. The Minister this afternoon was smiling broadly when he reminded the committee that the money came from the Greenbelt Fund and I think he has indicated that before. I just wondered if all the money necessary for the acquisition, not only of the vessel but the Inner Harbour lands and related items, came from that fund. Was there any draw at all on vote 130 in the Minister's department which is the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, pre-servicing and Crown lands subdivision's vote? No?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, there is none from that particular vote. The Reid Centre acquisition and the CPR land acquisition was under the Greenbelt Fund. There is the opportunity within the statute for the Crown in effect to recompense that fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will that be done?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well that's a matter to be determined with the Treasury Board.

MR. CURTIS: I did ask about fall and winter services, if any.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, we're certainly open to proposals and ideas, and I'm sure that the committee headed by the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) will come forth with proposals and we're certainly open to suggestions. There's certainly been no final decision made.

MR. CURTIS: Has the Steamship Company Ltd. applied to Ottawa, or inquired in Ottawa, or is it in the process in inquiring in Ottawa with regard to any federal operating subsidy for the Victoria-Seattle service?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have of course had that broad question discussed between Ottawa people and the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and that's an ongoing discussion, I'm sure.

We have had discussions, however, with the Americans, and the senators from Washington State, primarily Senator Magnusson, the senior senator. As a result, we have decreased some of the costs in Washington State that the CPR formerly had to meet. So I'm pleased to say that Senator Magnusson saw the need long before Ottawa did, but it's the kind of thing one gets used to west of the Rocky Mountains.

MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the information. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what was the nature of the assistance from Washington State. Again, perhaps he could be more helpful to the committee in terms of, have you knocked on Ottawa's door in the specific, or are you knocking on Ottawa's door, Mr. Chairman, through you, in the specific of this operation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, we personally have not. But we think there's a case for doing so and probably shall do so, in view of the fact that the terms of Confederation between British Columbia and Canada included steamship service to Olympia, Washington. We'd be happy with Seattle, which isn't quite so far. It also included service to San Francisco and that is not met.

The aid from the Americans was in relation to normal customs charges and those have been reduced.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've been thinking over the comments of the Minister, and the fact that he felt that he couldn't accept my amendments.

I still feel that one of the main concerns of opposition Members is the whole question of spending of public money and the accountability for

[ Page 3918 ]

that spending. It bothers me personally that the amount of money here involved can be substantial and the legislation says that the approval can be at the decision of cabinet.

I'm particularly talking about subsection 6(b) where borrowing up to $10 million is permissible with the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I would like to move an amendment to subsection 6(b), in line 5 and in line 7, where it states: "without the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor," to delete the words: "or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

The effect of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply be that the borrowing of the money, as it is with Hydro and B.C. Rail and so on....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Hon. Member was present, but the same motion was moved by the Member for Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. That amendment has already been proposed and defeated.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS —  28

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

On the title.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that I disagree with the title of this bill because it belies what is happening. It's not really an amendment to the Lands, Forests and Water Resources at all. This bill should be properly called the Bob Williams Unlimited bill because it is setting up for him his little kingdoms with the taxpayers' money.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: His little fiefdoms. So that's what the bill should properly be called — Bob Williams Unlimited.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 127, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 142.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 142; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, there's been no discussion, as you know, on this bill to date because of the fact it contains a number of amending sections to various bills. I have taken the opportunity of providing the Members of the House with copies of the sections that this bill seeks to amend so that they have in a handy form on their desks that which is sought to be achieved.

May I say on section 1 that section 1 of the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority Act is being amended in order to broaden the objects of the Authority to permit it to provide capital financing assistance for constructing and equipping medical and health facilities. Such medical and health facilities would not come under the definition of a hospital project as set out in the current legislation, and thus would not have been eligible for assistance. An example would be the projects being undertaken by the British Columbia

[ Page 3919 ]

Medical Centre in Vancouver. The amendment provides for making capital financing available to hospital corporations and societies, where necessary, in addition to regional hospital districts. It's in keeping with the general thrust of policy as laid down by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and will enable him to have more flexibility in building multi-health disciplinary facilities.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, this section seeks to simply limit the powers of the director, under the Debtor Assistance Act, only to inquire into the background and the credibility of those people who seek assistance. The Act currently means that the director, if he or she were of a mind, could inquire into anybody at any time — any of us, any of them, anybody at all. This obviously was incorrect, there was a mistake and we're changing it so that it's only those who seek assistance.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, this is self-explanatory. It just enables the Minister to authorize people to sign land registry documents on his behalf, but does not remove the obligation for the Minister to personally sign those papers relating to the purchase of real property.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask the Provincial Secretary if the authority can be transferred to persons working specifically for Dunhill Development Corp., or must they be working for the Department of Housing?

HON. MR. HALL: I would prefer that the Minister answer that question.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this is to facilitate signing such things as mortgages to be registered in the land registry office against documents and such. This is done in the Department of Housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll ask the question again. Can the authority be given to somebody who is employed directly for Dunhill Development Corp., or do they have to be employed by the Department of Housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I think if you read what it says...it says: "the Minister may in writing delegate any person" therefore, there's the answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: Am I to understand from that, then, that this authority can be delegated to persons employed directly by Dunhill Development Corp.?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Dunhill has its own signing officers, Mr. Member. No, this is to facilitate something within the department, as I said earlier.

MR. PHILLIPS: So then the authority will not be delegated to anybody working directly for Dunhill Development Corp.? Would the Minister answer, please?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why don't you let the Minister of Housing.... You can't even run your own department. How is it that everything you touch lose money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: You lose money, you lose money, you lose money. Then you try to tell him. He can lose enough money by himself without you trying to run his department.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: And don't you tell me to shut up, Madam Minister of Consumer Affairs!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like an American eagle over there — ready to strike at any time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Full of venom, that's what you are!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, section 4 is amended to give the department power to lease the real property to certain people under certain conditions.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, finally we have it. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) — you've got to bail him out so he can lease all that empty office space that he contracted over these many years and has never explained —

[ Page 3920 ]

space that sat empty at great public expense. Now we have to rush in in this bill the right to lease, and it goes through all the many Crown corporations associated with it.

The Minister is now going to play the real estate market and lease to anyone whom he considers in the public interest, and to do so at current market rates. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted on empty office space contracted far in advance of use, and now we have to bring in a bill so that we can sublet it. We in the opposition only wish that we didn't have to bail the Minister out at this time in panic, that perhaps a more reasoned approach to the acquirement of space for the various departments could have been based on their ability to fill them and their ability to use them rather than keep them empty, in some cases for over a year — empty office space, Mr. Chairman, much of which to this date hasn't been filled.

I can only suppose that this section 4 is brought in so that the government can finally sublet this space and recover from other firms and businesses that can use it the people's money that has been wasted every day. It is unfortunate that it was leased and contracted for in the first place.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, examining section 4(b), it says that when the Minister "considers it in the public interest to do so," he may "lease to any person, at current market rates, any real property or interest in real property that is under the control of the Minister."

When one relates this to the vacant offices that are strung throughout this province and for which the taxpayers are paying hundreds and thousands of dollars or rent, I wonder whether the Minister, when subleasing these buildings which he leased in excess of requirements.... What will he figure the current market rate to be? Will it be the rate that is currently being paid by the Department of Public Works for these excessive offices? Or, in some instances, will the taxpayers of this province be required to subsidize these vacant spaces, vacant offices, because the Minister is unable to secure the kind of per square footage rental fee to which he has committed the taxpayers of this province? Will they be rented at less than what we are currently paying for these unfortunate leases?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 4 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I asked a question. I think you are being most unreasonable and unfair. I have the right to ask a question. I think you have the right to allow a Minister to answer a question without arbitrarily trying to railroad these amendments through. I asked a question and it is a legitimate question. The people in this province are concerned with the kind of waste and extravagance displayed by that Department of Public Works and its inefficient Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, while this comes under a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, this particular change is one which should not pass without careful examination. The legislation presently provides that: "Any real property, when no longer required for the use of any public work, may be sold, leased, or disposed of by tender or public auction."

What government is proposing is to provide that, notwithstanding the obligation to tender, the Minister is being given certain extraordinary powers. While the section to which the Members have recently referred talks about leasing to any person at current market rates, the first part of this amending section, subsection (3), provides that, "for such consideration as the Minister deems appropriate." Nothing about current market rates. "For such consideration as the Minister deems appropriate," he may lease any real property "to any board, authority, or commission established under any Act" — which means a direct subsidy to such commission boards or other authority if it is leased for less than current market value — "to an incorporated society or association that provides a public service" — heaven knows what may fall within the scope of that provision....

MR. CURTIS: Go slowly, Allan, he's just reading it for the first time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "...to an incorporated co-operative association or credit union" — and perhaps this is the way in which government will assist credit unions when they come to establish their banks — and also "to a corporation established by or under any Act of the province or of Canada in which at least 51 per cent of the voting shares are owned by the province." I assume this is the way in which the Reid lands and other lands in the Inner Harbour in Victoria are to be passed over to British Columbia Steamships (1975) Ltd.

I think that if B.C. Steamships (1975) Ltd. Is going to operate all the property in the Inner Harbour in Victoria and if it is going to carry on a commercial venture, it should do so and stand on its own feet, not be subsidized by the Department of Public Works making the land available to them not at current market rates, but at rates which the Minister himself deems to be appropriate.

I think that this is a significant change and one which I must oppose. I think that Crown corporations, if they are going to become involved in matters of this nature, in business, should, so far as

[ Page 3921 ]

the Department of Public Works is concerned, stand on their feet along with anybody else and not receive any under-the-table subsidies by way of having land made available to them for their purposes at anything less than the economic rent.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, among the various groups that the Minister is now entitled to give away property to, I see, are credit unions or friendly co-operatives.

We've just had a little debate in this House about the inducements that the government might use to force a credit union to affiliate with the government corporation. I would interpret this particular section as one of those little inducements: "Play along with us, fellows, and we'll rent your property at taxpayers' expense, and then you can have it providing you play ball with our particular corporation."

I think that's potentially using public money to coerce people, and I don't think any Minister of the Crown ought to have that kind of property. I liked the Act the way it was, because it made it essential that the Minister operate in an above-board manner, and of course that is not the case any longer. He rewards his friends.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, another aspect of this section that could be misused is the question we've always had — do Crown corporations stand on their own feet, and do they receive special favours from the government?

Now it has always been suggested that they abided by the same rules as the individual out there in British Columbia. But for the first time we have it clearly spelled out in a bill that they will be given preferential treatment, that they will be given a preferential rate.

They are not called upon to pay market rates. They are called upon to pay a rate that the Minister considers appropriate. So supposedly he can buy the land from Can-Cel or for Can-Cel and lease it back to them at any rate to make them appear profitable. Then we are going to have to be subject to more silly speeches from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources saying how this little socialist government can manage things profitably, not mentioning that they have special deals.

After all the denials, for the first time now we have it right in black and white. They are going to get special deals to try and make them look good, because they don't have the management to make them compete any other way.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the sleeper in this bill. We always get one of these at the end of the session, a little sleeper section in this omnibus bull, that is being met with a sleepy Minister because he's been told by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) not to talk. But we would like some answers to our questions....

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I don't blame you, either.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I had to work with him I'd tell him to be quiet too. But we would like some answers.

This little sleeper bill will allow the Department of Public Works to put up the new Insurance Corporation building in Burnaby and rent it back to the Insurance Corporation and try to bail that Minister and that Insurance Corporation out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Subsidy!

MR. PHILLIPS: Subsidize it. It can also go in and use this to buy up Can-Cel's land and facilities. They have got numerous ways of subsidizing that Crown corporation now, but this will just be a way that this Minister can bail out all of these losing departments. It will be paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

This bill will also assist the Minister in getting rid of a lot of the office space that he and his department have made commitments to in many areas — commitments to lease — but haven't lived up to their responsibility. They have made commitments by letter saying they will lease the property but never got around to signing the actual lease.

I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Because the departments that are going to use many of the facilities that this Minister and his department have leased, or made a commitment to lease, when they look at the facilities they say, "Oh, no. This isn't what we want."

The Minister has made commitments to lease office and courthouse space for the Department of the Attorney-General. But when the Attorney-General's boys moved in they said, "That's not for us. We don't want that." So this will give the Minister the right to go ahead and get rid of those blunders he's made and lease them either to individuals or other Crown corporations.

I'd like the Minister to answer some of the questions that have been asked here.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is strangely silent. The Minister was the one who, all throughout this session, has been most responsive — a little late — but most responsive to questions posed to him about his leasing practices in the Department of Public Works. Yet now we come to a bill which is amending his Act, and giving him powers that no Minister of Public Works has ever had before, and he is strangely silent.

[ Page 3922 ]

I ask the Minister quite kindly, are you against the tender process? Are you not prepared to have the rent at which you make available property which is not required by your department available for anyone who might wish to use them at current market rates? Are you opposed to that concept? I find, from this particular Minister, that to be very strange because of all the questions that have been asked about his dealings in land, he's always assured the House that he's had appraisals and the government has always paid the fair going rate. When they lease everything is straight, above the board, no question about it.

The one way to assure that it will be above the board is to have tenders. I think the Minister has an obligation to the House to explain this sudden change in him.

MR. WALLACE: Speak up, Bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's always been an honourable Member, and as a Minister of the Crown I'm sure he recalls the days when he sat over here on this side of the House and demanded accountability from government for all of their actions. But now there he is. He's got the lever of power in his hands and he wants to change the rules. No tendering any more for excess land which his department holds or space in buildings. I think the Minister has got to tell us why there has been this conversion, maybe subversion, of an honourable Member from what he used to be on this floor of the House to what he is as a Minister of the Crown.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman, if they've set up all their strawmen — and they all seem to relate to the same strawman — it's quite a simple answer. We're merely trying to put the leasing of our space on a sounder basis, that the buildings we build, the space that we lease will continue to be, as the Hon. Member who has just sat down said, on a good sound business basis.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, at the current competitive market rate. When a department or a government agency decide to hire additional staff, we would like to say, "Yes, and how much space will you need?" and then reorganize our bookkeeping so that this is charged back to the various government agencies, if we are leasing to Crown corporations. Actually, Public Works doesn't have too much to do with Crown corporations. They usually look after their own property. But where they relate, then it will be charged back at a proper rate.

MR. McGEER: No subsidies of any kind?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No subsidies. This isn't to subsidize. It's just merely to put the department on a sounder businesslike basis with all other departments or government agencies.

MR. WALLACE: Just like ICBC — no subsidies.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, we actually lease no space, to my knowledge, to ICBC. They go out as a separate corporation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Department of Public Works isn't in any way subsidizing ICBC. We're not relating to them in space. They've looked after the handling of their own space. But for most other departments, and to many other government agencies, we do arrange for space. With this change, and by charging this space back to the various departments, then it's keeping it on a much sounder business basis.

Those departments have to be responsible. They say: "We're hiring so many more new persons in our department; we need so much more space." Okay, if we haven't the space already, we will arrange to lease it and charge it back to them so that in future years their budgets would be more representative of their space needs. As far as I'm concerned, this is just good business.

MR. BENNETT: That's a very good explanation, except why do we have one wording for one set of companies and another wording for Crown corporations? Here it says: "where the Minister considers it in the public interest to do so, can lease to any person at current market rates." When it deals with Crown corporations, when it deals with these corporations which he says he isn't going to subsidize, he's got a different wording. That's this: "...for such consideration as he considers appropriate."

Now why would you have a difference in wording? Why would the terms be one for a Crown corporation which indicates that you could lease it for what you consider appropriate, and yet specifically when you deal with the private sector, it says: "when the Minister considers it in the public interest to do so, to lease to any person at current market rates."

Now there is an obvious intent in here that the Minister is going to be encouraged to lease at subsidized rates to Crown corporations. If not, why the different wording? Why the different approach to the Minister's expected leases to Crown corporations and government-associated companies if it wasn't to help their financial statement, to make them appear profitable after such a series of disasters as ICBC and others? Is this the sleeper that is going to allow the government and the Minister some way to subsidize

[ Page 3923 ]

all of the losers and hide the losses in Public Works? Now if the Minister wishes us to believe his assurance, let him accept an amendment to this legislation providing the same wording that all such leases would be at current market rates. Or why not accept the bill as the legislation we now have, which is by tender, because the Minister never did respond to the question that I heard. What about it? Is he against tender?

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. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'd like to ask leave to table answer to question 116. It's a long answer so it's better tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: It's so long it will take up most of the Votes and Proceedings. Could you table it as a return with leave of the House?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With leave of the House I am tabling it as a return.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the order of business tonight will be to continue with public bills and orders. We will continue with the one which we just left.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

APPENDIX

127 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 127) intituled Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

After section 2 (6) (b) to add subsections (c) and (d) as follows:

(c) All borrowings of any corporation under the authority of this Act must be authorized by the Minister.

"(d) Any contravention of 2 (6) (b) by the Minister in authorizing borrowings in excess of the limits set herein shall be an offence."

To add after section 2 (16), as 2 (17) the following:

"The total aggregate moneys authorized under this Act whether by way or purchase of shares, loans, grants, lease obligations, purchase agreements or mortgages shall not exceed $14,250,000."

Section 6 (12), line 5, after the word "corporation" add the following words: "authorized, acquired or incorporated under this Act in the form of a certified audited financial statement in accordance with normal accepted business and accounting practices."

135 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 135) intituled Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

Section 2: By deleting section 2 and replace by:

"2. Section 4 is amended by repealing paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following:

"(a) a nurses' bargaining unit including all employees required as a condition of employment to be licensed or registered under the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act or Registered Nurses Act, including those employees who are eligible for a licence or registration and who are engaged in the practice of such profession;

"(b) a licensed professional bargaining unit including all employees who are members of an association that has statutory authority to license a person to practise that profession and who are engaged in the practice of such profession other than those described in paragraph (a);."