[ Page 2231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Trident missile base, Mr. Skelly — 2231

Provision of doctors in remote areas. Mr. Gibson — 2231

Low-priced Scotch at Habitat. Mr. Wallace — 2231

Egg Marketing Board problems. Mrs. Wallace — 2232

Food services on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2232

Keep Women Alive programme grant. Mr. Cocke — 2233

B.C. Ferries layoff. Mr. Lockstead — 2233

B.C. Hydro power development. Mr. Skelly — 2233

Ombudsman Act (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2234

Statement

Monitoring of food prices. Hon. Mr. Mair — 2234

Routine proceedings

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2234

Mr. Skelly — 2234

Mr. Gibson — 2235

Mr. Lauk — 2237

Mr. Wallace — 2238

Mr. Macdonald — 2239

Mr. Lloyd — 2240

Mr. Lockstead — 2240

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2240

Division on second reading — 2242

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2242

Mr. Macdonald — 2243

Mr. Lauk — 2243

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2243

Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act (Bill 18).

Committee, report and third reading — 2243

Interprovincial Subpoena Act (Bill 19). Committee stage.

On section 7.

Mr. Lauk — 2243

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

Report and third reading — 2244

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2244

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

On section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 2244

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

Mr. Lauk — 2245

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2245

Revenue Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 8). Committee stage.

Division on section 2 — 2246

Division on section 1 — 2246

Report and third reading — 2246

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 17). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

On section 5.

Mr. D'Arcy — 2247

Mr. Wallace — 2247

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

Mr. Skelly — 2247

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

Report stage — 2248

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr.Cocke — 2248

Mr. Gibson — 2248

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2249

Mr. Wallace — 224

Mr. Barber — 2250

Mr. King — 2250

Mr. Lauk — 2251

Mr. Barnes — 2252

Mr. Barber — 2253

Division on amendment to section 2 — 2253

On section 4.

Mr. King — 2254

Mr. Barnes — 2256

Mr. Barber — 2257

Mr. Wallace — 2259

Amendment to section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 2259

Mr. Gibson — 2261

Division on amendment to section 4 — 2261

Amendment to section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 2261

Division on amendment to section 4 — 2261

On section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2262

Mr. Macdonald — 2262

Amendment to section 4.

Mr. Cocke — 2262

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Cliff Scoton. I would ask members of the House to join me in giving Cliff a warm welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today we are privileged to have Mr. W.F.L. Reese, member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, Australia. He is accompanied by Mrs. Reese and Mr. and Mrs. Mellor of Australia, and I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously Australia day in British Columbia. I am very pleased to welcome in the gallery today Mr. Peter Murfett, who was secretary to the Consumer Affairs Council of Tasmania, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it's also Nanaimo day. In the gallery we have a group of students from the Nanaimo Senior Secondary School who have been down going through some government offices getting some idea of what it's like to work in a government office. They are accompanied by their teacher, Marilyn Frietag, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for New Westminster is 39 again. I would like the House to join us in wishing him a happy birthday.

Oral questions.

TRIDENT MISSILE BASE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question directed to the Premier. Did the government discuss the issue of the Trident nuclear submarine base in their meetings with Governor Dan Evans and his staff yesterday? If so, what position was taken by the Government of British Columbia, and which minister presented that position?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The subject was discussed between Governor Evans and myself.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. What was the position adopted by the Premier in his discussions with Governor Dan Evans?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We reiterated the concern of many British Columbians that our part of Canada would become a target because of the location of the Trident missile base.

MR. SKELLY: What was the response of Governor Dan Evans to the presentation by the Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Governor was duly sympathetic, and he said he would transmit our feelings to his Legislature.

PROVISION OF DOCTORS
IN REMOTE AREAS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. Now that the Human Rights Commission, on the grounds of discrimination, has ruled out the scheme of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to assign immigrant doctors to remote areas as a condition of licensing, and given that I know the minister wants to promote good medical attention in remote areas, can he tell us which option he now favours — the extension of remote-area service requirement to all new doctors, whether trained in B.C. or not, or the provision of suitable financial incentives which the minister has power to do?

HON. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we've agreed to meet with the British Columbia Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons to establish a policy for the future.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to report back to the House when he has reached such a policy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we always do.

LOW-PRICED SCOTCH AT HABITAT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General a question regarding a report today that at Habitat bottles of Scotch are being made available at much reduced prices to delegates of Habitat, who apparently are reselling these bottles at cost. To point out the gravity of the problem, (laughter) an $8 bottle of Scotch is selling for $2.38.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. member takes full responsibility for what he has just said.

[ Page 2232 ]

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it really is grave, because I've been unable to acquire any at that price. But I wonder if the Attorney-General was consulted regarding these arrangements for the delegates at Habitat and whether he considers that this is not stretching hospitality just a little too far.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to, first of all, thank the member for his jolly question. I'm unaware of the specifics which you have referred to, hon. Member, but I do know that there's a practice of liquor being sold to the consular service and to people of other countries in bond, and maybe that's what's going on there. I'll look into it and give you a report.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Attorney-General's answer because I understand that he kept his word on the question of firearms being brought into the country. I understand that several delegates have been separated from their weapons. I wonder if he could give us the same assurance that we're not encouraging bootlegging during Habitat conference.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wouldn't think it was a question of bootlegging, hon. Member

EGG MARKETING BOARD PROBLEMS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, yesterday both myself and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and, to the best of my ability, I was not able to understand or grasp the answer. I'm going to try it again today. Is the minister moving to ask the provincial marketing board to investigate the situation with the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Yes or no?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question as best I could yesterday without going into a matter of policy, and I think that my answer yesterday is on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, Beauchesne, 4th edition, 1958: "It is out of order to multiply with slight variations a similar question on the same point."

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental question. I had asked the minister a question which requires only a one-word answer, and I'm not able to get it. I wonder if perhaps, as a visual aid, I could send these flash cards across the floor to the minister and perhaps ask him again: is he considering asking the provincial marketing board to intervene?

FOOD SERVICES ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. With regard to changes in the ferry services which began yesterday, and with particular reference to food services, has the minister been informed that on the first day in which the new frozen food supply was used at least 50 complaints were received from passengers, including one incident where an irate passenger threw a tray at an employee because of the poor standard of food served?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I have been informed as to a few complaints. I might add that the dining rooms were all closed on June 1 and have not operated since. This has placed an additional load on the cafeterias. There are certain problems, although the numbers of passengers are reduced.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Following on the minister's answer — which was the introduction of a deliberate policy — I assume the minister was aware that by closing the dining rooms there would be an increased pressure on the cafeteria. But prior to the changeover in the food service, from fresh food cooked in the galleys to the now frozen food supply which is being used, I understand that the Purchasing Commission previously sought tenders from food suppliers. I'd like to know if the management also sought tenders before they implemented the introduction of the new supply of frozen foods.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. I should perhaps add that the non-licensed employees are limiting the extent of their service in the first few days of the new arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, if I may, quickly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I had recognized the hon. member for New Westminster,

[ Page 2233 ]

unless he yields the floor.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I yield.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Member. In view of the increased ferry fares and the increased costs on the ferry system — such as a cup of coffee, which has gone from 25 cents to 35 cents — the obvious complaints about the inferior quality about the frozen food, and the number of complaints being received, will the minister give any undertaking to review the basic decision to change the type of food service being provided in the cafeterias on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The nature and the quality of the service provided by the cafeterias on the ferries is, in fact, under review, and we hope we can improve that service.

KEEP WOMEN ALIVE PROGRAMME GRANT

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary: on March 22, 71 days ago, I asked the Provincial Secretary whether she had consulted the Medical Advisory Grants Committee before making a grant to the Keep Women Alive Programme. She did not answer the question. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) repeated the question to her on April 15, and she took the question as notice. On April 27 the second member for Burrard asked the question again. The minister's answer was: "I believe I took that as notice, and I will have to report to you at a later date." Mr. Speaker, is the minister yet ready to report on that very simple question?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I did report to the House on a date when the hon. member who has just posed the question was absent from the House. It was on the Friday preceding the Easter vacation. At that time I reported that indeed we had reviewed the grant and the Department of Health was going to oversee the programme as it went along for Keep Women Alive. The report was fully given to the House and tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. I read that in the Blues. But the question I asked was: did the minister consult the Medical Advisory Grants Committee? That's all, pure and simple. You may remember that I outlined who the Medical Advisory Grants Committee was at the time. A very simple yes or no would do.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in reporting to the House I said that my staff was looking into all of the aspects surrounding the grant and also the question that had been raised by the opposition members. All of that was canvassed by my staff, and the full report was given to the House. I think it was well done by my staff.

B.C. FERRIES LAYOFF

MR. D. F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Transport: I would like to know if any workers have been laid off from B.C. ferries since June 1 of this year.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't know that any additional employees have been laid off since yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. I would like to know how many employees have been laid off, including yesterday, since June 1 - yesterday and today. How many workers have been laid off from the B.C. ferries service since May 31?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll have to take that question as notice. I'll examine the Hansard and try and get the details.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Final supplementary. Could the minister as well take as notice how many workers he expects will be laid off, how the minister expects those people will be relocated to other jobs and how he expects these laid-off workers to be handled?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly the ferry service is doing its utmost to relocate all of these employees who are being laid off.

B.C. HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question directed to the Minister of Environment: B.C. Hydro chairman Robert Bonner has indicated massive power development around the province, based on a 9.2 per cent annual power growth rate. Last Saturday the minister told the SPEC annual convention not to take Bonner's plans too seriously, and not to be too concerned about what he is saying. Can the minister assure the House that the public can safely ignore Mr. Bonner's plans?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): The question from the member, unfortunately, is quoting from a newspaper, which is an error — unfortunately. That question was raised by a reporter after the meeting, and I told the reporter that Mr. Bonner's recommendations are taken into consideration, as are the recommendations by any other government agency. It is a government decision,

[ Page 2234 ]

which will be made, to determine the growth rate necessary, and government will make that decision.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, Hon. Members.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) a question. The question was if the alleged overcharging by certain personnel of B.C. Ferries were statements he had made to elected representatives in my group. I would like to tell you at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I based my question on incorrect information. It was verified this morning that the information I based the question on was incorrect, and I wish to apologize to the minister and to members of his department for any injustice.

Introduction of bills.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ombudsman Act.

Bill 48 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.

MONITORING OF FOOD PRICES

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) concerning the monitoring of food prices, and I wish to answer it now by saying that there will be no change in our department's policy in monitoring food prices. The policy will continue as it was when she and the member for Vancouver South visited the office and were given a tour.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 21.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, Bill 21 is a very small bill — it has only two parts — but this bill does demonstrate this government's desire to encourage personal initiative and enterprise among its citizens. This bill does something for the little guy, and this government is always wanting to do things for the little person. The members opposite, Mr. Speaker, quite often say things about the little guy and wanting him to have a chance, and yet I find it necessary to amend an Act by that government which, in fact, took the chance of the little guy away.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Prospectors Assistance Act takes away the government's right of first refusal on properties discovered by prospectors when working under the Prospectors Assistance Act. This government does not intend to become involved in the mining business, and this government does not think that the tax moneys collected from the citizens of British Columbia should be risked in the high-risk business of mining — the high-risk, low-return business of mining.

Prospectors, when they discover a prospect of merit...generally the first procedure is to find someone to offer financial help, technical expertise and physical resources to develop the property. It's impossible for a prospector to get anyone interested in a prospect if, in fact, the government has the right of first refusal. It takes, in many cases, a great deal of expense and time to develop a property to the point where it can be demonstrated whether it is viable or not. Mining companies, mining developers and people with the resources to do this work will not look at a mining property if they know that should it prove to be viable, then the government will take it away. If it is not viable, of course, then it must do as most properties do and just disappear. This is, I think, a very basic part of our free enterprise system, in that individuals should have the right to do things for themselves without interference by government.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be now read for a second time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill which, as the minister has pointed out, limits the right of the people of the province to share in the value of the resources which they assisted in financing in the first place, in discovering in the first place.

This province, under the New Democratic Party government, increased assistance to small prospectors — the little people that the Minister of Mines talks about. In return they expected that the province should share in the right of returns from the prospects which were located through government financing — not to take away the prospects but simply to share in the returns by the right of obtaining first refusal to lease or to purchase the mining claims discovered, or to enter into agreements with the prospectors or other corporations to develop

[ Page 2235 ]

the claims located by those prospectors who were assisted by the government.

I believe that this section is regressive. By removing section 6(b) and (c) it's regressive. At the Economic Outlook Conference, held by the Economic Council of Canada in 1973, it was pointed out that countries all over the world are seeking a better return, a higher return, especially from non-renewable resources. They pointed out, especially in the mining subsection of that Economic Outlook Conference, that over the past 13 years or so, up to 1973, government participation in mining had increased tremendously. For example, they pointed out at that conference that one-half of 1 per cent of worldwide copper production in 1970 was attributable to government mining enterprises, but by 1973 that had increased to something like 45 per cent of the value of copper output in the world.

So this is a regressive piece of legislation in that it prevents the government from sharing in the development and the returns from non-renewable resources which other countries are taking advantage of — in fact, other countries which, supposedly, mining companies from British Columbia are escaping to. So those countries are becoming more and more involved in mining production and mining development in conjunction with private corporations.

The minister said that he does not intend to become involved in a high-risk, low-return industry. That's a phony statement if I ever heard one. Mining isn't a high-risk, low-return industry. It has been demonstrated over and over again that it's not a high-risk, low-return industry. If there were low returns, as the mining companies themselves say, they would be going into other businesses. So the returns are fairly substantial. The mining companies realize that, and although they don't admit it, they know the returns are substantial, and that's why they are still in the business.

Other countries — especially in oil, which is becoming a scarce commodity — are taking more and more of a percentage of that non-renewable resource as their share in the ownership of that resource. Guatemala, a banana republic in Central America, recently passed legislation that 55 per cent of oil discovered in Guatemala by private companies would be owned by that government, the government of Guatemala. The companies are flocking into Guatemala because of recent oil discoveries in Mexico, knowing that a minimum of 55 per cent of the oil they discover will go to the government of Guatemala.

Peru, another banana republic in South America, has the same type of legislation — that any company discovering oil, any private company discovering oil in Peru, will have to share 50 per cent of the oil discovered with the Peruvian government, and those oil companies are flocking into Peru as well.

All governments are becoming involved in mining and oil enterprises — all but this government, this regressive Social Credit government, this regressive coalition. We're going back to 1951 here.

All governments all over the world, with the possible exception of this one, are becoming involved in mining and in the oil industry — including the Canadian government — because they are dealing with non-renewable resources and they feel that the people of the country in which those non-renewable resources are located have a right to share in those resources of which they are the owners.

So I think this is regressive legislation. I don't think it protects the small prospector, the individual prospector. Instead of having the option of selling to the government.... And the government doesn't have to exercise its right to first refusal. I'm sure this so-called private enterprise government wouldn't exercise its right; it could leave it on the books but it wouldn't exercise its right. I think it's a sellout of the small prospector to those huge mining companies that operate throughout the world.

The facts are that there are six companies in the world in the copper business — six huge multinational corporations that are involved in the copper industry throughout the world, and you're driving the small prospector into the hands of those huge corporations. It's the same in every other mineral mining enterprise — they're controlled by huge industries, huge multinational corporations; and you're leaving these small prospectors at the mercy of those huge corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those huge governments.

MR. SKELLY: So I think that what this bill does, essentially, is to sell out those small prospectors to the large corporations. It leaves them unprotected. At least under this section of the bill the prospector had the option of selling to the government if the large corporations were holding him to ransom. I think it sells out the people of this province, because rather than the people sharing in the ownership of a mining concern, or a mining enterprise in British Columbia that was discovered by a resident British Columbian prospector, instead we will be selling it out to one of the six, huge multinational corporations, whose head offices, or all of whose head offices, are located outside of this country.

So it's a sellout bill, and it sells out the little guy. It sells out the people of this province. This opposition opposes the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly have to come to the

[ Page 2236 ]

conclusion that the NDP still doesn't understand the mining industry in this province, and it's important that they should. It's incumbent upon the group that's the official opposition in this province that they should have a sensible economic appreciation of one of our very fundamental, basic industries, or else down through the years the fear that their ridiculous policy from 1972-1975 may be back again will continue to inhibit mining development in this province. It's terribly important that the NDP should re-examine their philosophy and at their next conference, which I think is only 10 days or so from now, change their line and come out in favour of jobs for British Columbians, because that's what we're talking about.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I just heard the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) say: "Now mining isn't a high-risk, low-return industry." Well, I don't know which mines he's looking at, Mr. Speaker. There are a few mines that are very profitable. There are a lot more mines that have disappeared; nobody's ever heard of them since, and they've lost their capital.

The fact of the matter is that the British Columbia average last year was something like a 5.8 per cent return on investment. Any mining company with that kind of return could have done a lot better to put their money into B.C. Hydro bonds or Canada Savings Bonds, or just the bank — whatever it might be.

MR. SKELLY: Why didn't they?

MR. GIBSON: "Why didn't they?" says the hon. member for Alberni. He doesn't realize their capital is locked in there. They've got nowhere else to go. That money is in those operating mines. They've got no choice but to keep those mines going, but they've got a low rate of return.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What about in 1974?

MR. GIBSON: The former Minister of Mines (Mr. Lauk) — who I devoutly hope will stand up and speak to us in this debate because he was starting to move a little bit in the right direction just before the last government went out — says: "What about 1974?" In 1974, the rate of return, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, was something like 11 per cent, if memory serves right. I'll be glad to go and look that up, but I'm pretty sure that's what it was.

MR. LAUK: I think you better.

MR. GIBSON: No, you go do your own research, Mr. Member. That's the number, more or less.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: What are we talking about here, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about $150,000 provided in this year's estimates — $150,000 only, and I wish it were more — for the prospectors' assistance programme. These are small grants of, at most, a few thousand dollars each. The applications to date in this year have been 280, as compared to about 210 last year, according to inquiries I've made. The approvals to date have only been something like 50, as opposed to 162 last year, but there is less money this year — which, as I say, I regret. But the point I'm trying to make to the hon. member who just spoke is that we're hardly giving away the keys to the treasury of the province of British Columbia. This is a very minor programme.

Now let's say that a prospector under this programme goes out and finds something. Are we giving away the public right in that deposit? Of course not.

Mr. Member, should your group get back into power and want to take a piece of that deposit, they've a perfect right to offer the owner — the small prospector who found it, because he is the kind who is given grants under this programme — offer, like any other buyer, to purchase it. That's fair enough. But the sections being repealed gave an unconditional right of first refusal, which meant that that was a charge on that particular deposit.

MR. SKELLY: What if he's financed by Noranda?

MR. GIBSON: The member says: "What if he's financed by Noranda?" If that member still wants to have a piece of the action, then it's very simple: you offer equally good terms, or better terms.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): That may not be the condition of his agreement with Noranda.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister introduced this bill as a very small bill, and it is. I'm waiting for the big bill. I'm waiting for the bill that is going to get rid of Bill 31 in this province, because that's what we have to do, and do it this session, Mr. Minister. I appeal to your cabinet colleagues, and I know you are appealing to your cabinet colleagues: let's do it this session, because the industry in this province is still being seriously hampered by these uncertainties.

This prospectors' assistance section that is being repealed was an unnecessary incursion by the government into a field that is already difficult enough for the small prospector. He is hampered with regulations of various kinds.

[ Page 2237 ]

Under this old legislation he was told that had he been grub-staked to a small amount by the government; he really didn't have the right to deal with what he found.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could sell it.

MR. GIBSON: He didn't have the right to deal with it freely, Mr. Member. Always he had hanging over his shoulder the right of first refusal. That meant that when he or she — because we now have female prospectors around the province — went anywhere to try and deal with this property, there was always that right of first refusal hanging over the possibility of a deal. Therefore it became very, very difficult to complete any kind of a deal. It was an unnecessary incursion.

You know, the position of the Crown is well protected by the right to tax, Mr. Speaker. We can differ in this House as to what the appropriate forms and levels of taxation are, but that right to tax is always there, and it is an appropriate protection for the Crown, especially at the prospecting level where in terms of these grants....

I remind you once again, hon. members, we are not talking about giant multinational corporations; we are talking about individual British Columbia prospectors. Why are you afraid of them? It's kind of tough work being a prospector. You get out there with the mosquitoes, you're away for a long time, you're tramping up one hill and down another, and probably you're not eating quite as well as you'd like, but you're out there because you've got a gleam in your eye, or some kind of a vision. You are looking for that chance to make a big win — not big in terms of the wealth of our province, but big in terms of the return to one individual. Most of them never get that big return, and this takes away most of the chance of it — that's why this bill is proper, this bill to repeal that section giving first refusal.

If hon. members to my right, physically, are concerned about this small incentive, this $150,000 prospectors grant, they should compare it with incentives in other parts of the country, particularly in northern Canada.

Our members there are aware that for many years — and I'm not sure if this programme is still in effect — there was a 40 per cent absolute reimbursement of cost for exploration expenditures. It wasn't just to the small prospector; it was to anybody. It was to the large companies, as long as the exploration programmes were approved. This is chickenfeed in terms of exploration expenditures, and it's going to the right people; it's going to the small person.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've pretty well said what I have to say here. I support this bill as being a step that does not in any way detract from the public interest and contributes to it, because we have to remember that in our province the only way we are going to progress in this world is not by taking in each other's laundry; it is only by the creation of wealth which we can dispose of abroad and receive in return the goods and services we must purchase from abroad because we don't do everything in this province.

Therefore the discovery of a new mineral deposit, which is done by prospectors, is a thing of inestimable value to this province. It's the kind of thing, if anything in our province deserves headlines, that should be on the very front page saying: "New Copper Body Found" — so many million tons, or whatever the discovery may be, because that means something to every family in British Columbia something in terms of their welfare. It's very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go into the whole philosophy of mining legislation with respect to this bill. I will agree with the minister — it is a little bill, but it's a positive step forward. I wholeheartedly support it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't allow the hon. Liberal leader's remarks to go unanswered. I think this party does understand in fact the mining industry in this province and the major corporate involvement in the mining industry throughout the world. I think this bill is really not meeting any problem whatsoever; it's an excuse for the minister's inaction in bringing about, in their view, in his coalition party's view, a more equitable taxation policy for the mining industry.

Our hopes on this side of the House that the pendulum would not swing too far the other way after the coalition victory were dashed when a special committee, set up by the previous administration, was summarily and practically without notice dismissed — a committee that was to advise the minister on this Act and other mineral legislation, a well-balanced committee made up of, among other persons, the president of the Mining Association of British Columbia, Dr. John Helliwell, a distinguished, internationally known resource economist, and the regional director of one of the major labour unions involved in the mining industry — a labour union that was not that supportive of old mineral royalty legislation passed by the NDP administration, as you might know.

I would say that this cosmetic lip service the minister is paying through this bill to the dramatic and outrageous statements made by that party during the campaign is small support for the votes they did get as a result of that unrealistic campaign.

There are regulations, a morass of regulations, involving prospectors in, indeed, all aspects of prospecting and staking of claims in this province that must be dealt with — regulations that did not only

[ Page 2238 ]

accumulate under the previous administration but accumulated over many, many years, regulations that were passed by the previous Social Credit government to patch up a mining Act that had not been substantially amended for the last 55 to 60 years.

The Social Credit government in 1954 passed legislation that had to be withdrawn 12 months later in the face of tremendous opposition from fledgling multinational corporations of the day. They caved in, in facing up to their responsibilities to represent the people of this province. They caved in under an attack made by the major multinational corporations that were then in place and which have grown multi-multi times since 1954-55, Mr. Speaker, and which pose a great threat not only to the prospector but to every citizen of this province.

We talk about jobs, and we talk about economic development — it's a farce. It's a farce when you say that we must provide jobs and economic development only by caving in to multinational corporations which have, through their American control primarily, mortgaged this country for the foreseeable future. We talk about the Canadian economy and its vibrance and its strength, but it's in the face of multinational control, and particularly the mortgage that is held by the United States on all of Canada, making our dollar overvalued on the exchange and so on. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this little bill, this trickle over the waterfall, is only lip service. It attacks the most wrong area of the legislation that should be reviewed and changed. The right of first refusal is disallowing the major multinational corporations from forcing up the price to the public.

You must understand that this section was placed in the Prospectors Assistance Act as a good section, and supportable for various reasons. First of all, the prospector — the little guy, the British Columbian — who discovers a deposit that may be commercially viable should have had an opportunity to deal not with the mining cartels but with another party to get a better price, perhaps, and to avoid the multinational corporations forcing up the price to the public, making the public pay a lot more than was economically viable for this claim. The right of first refusal was essential. It's a minor thing, but it is an important thing when it comes to the public purse. The only reason why it's being proposed that it be repealed at this stage is because the government is indicating by this action that it has no intention of bidding on properties in competition with the multinational corporations; it has no intention of entering the marketplace and protecting the little prospector in this community. But it has every intention of throwing that prospector to the wolves: those multinational corporations.

I find the policy of the new minister insincere. I don't find him insincere; I find his policy insincere. It does not reflect and fulfil an implied promise made by any political party to represent all of the people of British Columbia, and that's why the opposition must oppose this silly amendment that's being proposed. It's silly, it's lip service, and it doesn't come to grips with problems.

Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I must add one further comment. By the dismissal of the special committee that was set up to review all of the mining legislation, this government has revealed a dangerous trend, insofar as its mining policy is concerned. They are willing to sell out the birthright of this province for future generations, without proper public control. They are willing to conduct policy and Star Chamber–type proceedings. I caution the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let the legislation that comes on this floor dealing with mining legislation be public policy legislation, not out of the boardrooms of the major corporations. If there's any evidence that that is so, this opposition will be very, very much compelled to attack that minister and his position in that government. It is absolutely essential that public protection be the watchwords of his ministry in mining controls and legislation. If he sells out purely to the industry as an excuse, and allows the pendulum to swing so much, so dramatically, in another way, this opposition will oppose him every step and every inch along the way. He will not be sleeping nights, Mr. Speaker, if that becomes the case.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this bill for the simple reason that, as I've mentioned in other debates, we're concerned to keep government out of the affairs of business and of the individual to the greatest possible extent. That's why, while I support this bill, I find it so much at variance with the kind of bill we debated the other day, where we create another Crown corporation.

We felt, during the last election, that this was a very big issue, the principle of increasing interference and authoritarian measures by government in a wide variety of fields, including mining. The minister was very honest with the House and said this is a small bill, because indeed many areas of the mining situation desperately need legislation, more so than this particular bill — important as this bill is in relation to the individual prospector. I'm talking about ministerial discretion, the mining Act and the mineral royalties and such enormously serious matters as federal-provincial tax measures in the mining industry.

But to deal specifically with this bill, we don't like any kind of legislation which puts the government or an arm of government in a completely monopolistic position. We opposed ICBC for that kind of reason, and we would oppose this kind of bill for the same basic, philosophical reason.

There may well be points to be made for giving the government participation in corporations or

[ Page 2239 ]

companies dealing with natural resources. But I think that the government should be an equal competitor under the same ground rules and with no privileged position and compete as any other potential buyer would do — and, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) put it so well, pay a fair price, or a better price if they consider it is that important for the project to go ahead and if it is worth X dollars.

We feel that one of the most serious challenges facing society, not only in mining but in the environment and resource management and health and so many other fields, is that the government spends so much of its time building up various bureaucracies and tribunals and commissions and boards — and if I could just pick the example that I am so perturbed about these days, the Egg Marketing Board — that we finish up, through the vehicle of government, trying to solve problems, and half the time we only seem to create more problems because the government, through its top-heavy bureaucracy, loses sight of what the original goal is. Surely the goal in the mining industry is to resuscitate it right now and as fast as we can with this kind of measure and many other measures. So I feel that this is a bill we can support without any hesitation.

I'm a little amused by some of the comments in the debate — that we visualize in the words that have been used in the House that the prospector is some timid little person who really can't look after his own interests and that he can so readily be taken in by multinational corporations. It would be my feeling from what I have read, and a great deal of comments, that the mineral prospector is a pretty hardy, tough guy with a great deal of initiative and self-reliance. I wouldn't expect that he would be the easiest guy in the world to get fooled when he finds that he's made a mineral discovery of some very significant value. He's in the business of mining, and he presumably is.... If he's prepared to put up with some of the difficulties involved in being a prospector, I don't think that he would be any kind of easy prey for any fast-talking representative of a multinational corporation.

But that is secondary to my thinking on this bill. I'm just opposed to more and more government of any kind in just about any area you can imagine, unless there is some very important social...or matter of law and order, or subjects of this type. Government may have to spread its wings, as it were. But in areas such as this, the best government is the least government.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I can't add very much to what has been said by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . There is no way in which I can hope to educate, in a couple of minutes, the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson).

He seems to believe that British Columbia should export its precious mineral resources onto the markets of the world without any rental or royalty whatsoever back to the people of the province. You know there is no area in the world that would even listen to that kind of thing, which is promulgated by the Mining Association and, unfortunately, by the Liberal Party.

I want you to take to your convention, Mr. Member, the proposition that there is something to be said for protecting the public interest in its own resources.

This bill, Mr. Speaker — the minister says it is fair to the little people. Let me tell him that the little people are the taxpayers of this province too, and this bill is unfair to those taxpayers. They pony up, whether it be $1,000 or $1,500, to help some prospector make a find, and the incentives should be improved. But it's the public that puts up the seed capital for this little venture that has no protection whatsoever when it is gobbled up by a multinational corporation. You've got to remember that in Canada 80 per cent of our mining industry is foreign controlled, and you people who want to repeal even this little section are promoting greater foreign ownership of our natural wealth.

The small prospector is not hurt in any way. In fact, he is protected by this additional option. He either gets a good price from the company that wants to develop that claim or the government can come in with public money and purchase the claim. That's an additional option. He doesn't have to sell, but he has that assistance.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Mines really does have any concern for the public interest in the administration of his portfolio. He gives a $1,000 grant, without tender, to the son of his executive assistant to promote the interests of the mining companies in the province of British Columbia which are very well able to look after themselves. When you see that kind of use of public money, you have to ask: whose side is the minister on? Is he on the side of just the mining companies, or is he on the side of the whole people of the province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Noranda.

MR. MACDONALD: He has demonstrated at this point that he is not ready to stand up and protect the people of this province, but rather to protect a resource which is so largely foreign owned and dominated. He is turning his back upon all of the history of all of the other countries of the world where mining goes ahead now as a joint enterprise with public participation; and that has to be the future of mining in British Columbia.

The old days of cap and get out, dig and sell off,

[ Page 2240 ]

and find something and flog it on Howe Street.... As the member for Vancouver Centre said, flog the licence back and forth, make speculative profits along the way, hike up the cost of the mineral instead of developing the mine or the resource. That's the way this government is pointing, and it's certainly not in the interest of the development of our natural wealth in this province. It isn't the way that protects in any way the public interest, and it means additionally that we are selling out once again to foreign ownership of the natural resources of the province of British Columbia.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'll be very brief on this too. I think the bill is pretty well self-explanatory — certainly it has been long waited for. The mining industry has suffered enough in the last three years.

I'll have to agree with the member that there isn't too much possibility of trying to educate the opposition into the economics of mining or lumbering, or practically anything else that's got any real, basic value to it. Their heads are up in the clouds so far they can't really see what the common person does require. They feel the small man, the prospector, is ripped off by taking this right away. I think, after the last legislation brought down by the previous government, they should be fairly well aware of what the public thinks of the protection they were trying to evolve for the small person. I think it was fairly clearly demonstrated last fall.

It was a pledge of this government to get the mining industry back on its feet, an industry which supplied a good deal of revenue to this province up till three years ago, an industry that was really getting on its feet, up till three years ago.

MR. MACDONALD: We increased the revenue.

MR. LLOYD: Certainly I'm hopeful that it will make some giant steps again.

Mr. Speaker, another thing I think a lot of people overlook when they talk about the mining corporations and how large they are is where the expertise for mining actually comes from. B.C. and Canadian mining expertise is some of the top expertise in the world, and it's expertise that we've developed locally. We are discouraging this and driving them out of the province, driving them out of our country even, by the type of legislation that was proposed three years ago. In all fairness, I think I'll certainly have to agree with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that this is only a step along the way. We have to repeal that entire Bill 31.

I think another thing a lot of people overlook is that, sure, B.C. has got a lot of ore; it has a lot of resources. It also has a lot of mines that have been already closed down because the ore wasn't of a high enough value, and here we're talking about let's keep soaking it to them, boys, let's keep soaking it to them. All you're really waiting for is some of the better resources, located in some of the more backward parts of the world, to be developed and come on stream; then ours will sit in the ground for another 50 years.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is only a step in the right direction, and I speak in full support of Bill 21. Thank you.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, just a few words, because I wasn't going to speak on this bill. I oppose the principle of this bill for the reasons that have been outlined by other members of this House.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, some of the statements made: first of all, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) talked about jobs in the mining industry. Well, we all know that the mining industry in all parts of Canada in the last four years has been in a very unsteady state and there have not been many new mines opening. Certainly we admit in British Columbia that there have been some new mines opened, but not many. But neither has there been in the Yukon or in Ontario, Quebec or other major mining provinces of this country.

But in regard to jobs, there's more to extracting a non-renewable resource than just jobs, Mr. Speaker. Jobs are important and those resources should provide jobs, but the people of this province must get a fair return for that resource.

The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) discussed revenue to the province from the mining industry. I'd just like to quote a few figures from Price Waterhouse and Co. In 1971 taxes paid to the province of British Columbia by the mining industry were $24,372,000. In 1974, under New Democratic Party administration, the taxes paid by the mining industry to this province were $97,072,000, or more than triple.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't like to hear members get up in this House and say that the New Democratic government stifled the mining industry in this province, because we did not. We actively promoted the mining industry, and profits were never so great for the mining industry in this province as when we were the government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some of the remarks I hear are quite amusing actually. Starting with the member for Mackenzie — he quoted probably two statistics. However, statistics can be made to say anything. He said that in 1971 the mining industry paid taxes of $24 million — was it? Mr. Speaker, in

[ Page 2241 ]

1971 the mining industry in British Columbia suffered a net loss on total capital invested of 1.6 per cent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The mining industry under Social Credit — that is right.

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in British Columbia between the years 1967 and 1973 had an average net profit on invested capital of 9.8 per cent. When we speak of invested capital we speak only of capital invested in mines that eventually become mines. We do not consider the vast numbers of dollars which are spent on mines which do not ever become mines, on prospects which turn out to be nothing but waste rock.

The mining industry in British Columbia in 1973 had a net profit of 24 per cent on invested capital. It was that year — that one year — on which that government based all its thoughts on the mining industry.

MR. LAUK: That's not a correct statement.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They were so myopic in their thinking — as far back as they could see — that they chose to base their whole....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They could see here, Mr. Speaker, a fantastic source of wealth and revenue for the government because they looked at one year when there was 24 per cent return — and that was it. It must be a fantastic rip-off. But they didn't look back to the year before when there was a profit of 1.7 per cent or the year before that when there was a net loss of 1.6 per cent.

So if they look at the industry instead of at the end of their nose, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they can have some correct thoughts of the real nature of this industry.

I'm sorry, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I think your figure was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's doing his own research.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there's always great concern by the members opposite about the people of British Columbia sharing in the products of the resource. Well, people do share. Under a profit-based tax system, half of the revenue generated by these companies — by this terrible, nasty mining industry — comes back to the people. They don't have to buy the cow when the milk is free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the late 1950s and early 1960s there was a man — and I think we have all heard of him — whose name was Spud Hustis. He was a prospector who went around the Highland Valley of British Columbia with the backside out of his pants. He was looking for somebody, some terrible multinational company, to help him finance this little mine. But the multinational companies looked at it and said: "No, there's no chance of doing anything there." This man, with his own determination, his foresight, his desire to really create something, went ahead, and he eventually did find financing for this mine. He was a prospector just like the prospectors who work under the Prospectors Assistance Act, and because he had this kind of foresight, Mr. Speaker, another multinational corporation developed, one of those terrible monsters.

This multinational corporation is primarily owned by Canadians and British Columbians, and it's Bethlehem Copper. This company has generated a great deal of capital, and Mr. Hustis himself attained quite a lot of personal wealth. But the wealth he generated for the province of British Columbia in terms of jobs and opportunities and tax revenue for this province would never have existed had the attitude of that former government existed at that time.

MR. LAUK: CPR owns it now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The former Minister of Mines tells about the Helliwell commission, which he appointed as soon as he was appointed Minister of Mines. The terms of reference of this Helliwell commission were to determine the effect of royalties on the cut-off grades of mining property. I know what the effect of royalties is on cut-off grades. It reduces them. That member certainly did not have to have a commission to tell him that.

MR. LAUK: That's wrong.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that member was looking for some way of saving face and of getting out of a royalty taxation system.

MR. LAUK: False statements. Tell the truth, Tom.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is but one step towards our stated objective of getting this industry moving again. Admittedly it is a small step, but others will follow.

[ Page 2242 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. There is a motion on the floor, Hon. Member. Has it to do with the placing of the motion?

MR. LAUK: It has to do with standing orders and correcting statements made by the minister before the vote is put.

MR. SPEAKER: What standing order are you quoting?

MR. LAUK: I don't have my book with me. I think it's standing order 42. The member wishes to put the truth before this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member referring to standing order 42 — the learned member?

MR. LAUK: You've been waiting all spring to say that, haven't you?

It says: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of the material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister indicated that the terms of reference for the Helliwell commission were only a very narrow term of reference. That's not correct. All of the terms of reference — and there were three major ones — were publicized at the appointment of the committee and are public knowledge. I won't deal with them now with the House, but they included several other points besides that which the minister mentioned. I think it's unfair of him to pretend that it was only one narrow term. It was the broad range of legislation affecting the mineral industry.

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, the Clerk was announcing the vote, and I didn't see the Member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: There are a number of members not in their seats, Hon. Member.

Before the point of order was raised there was a request for recording, but I'm not sure how many members were standing at that time. (Laughter.)

Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps this is a bill that could be better considered in committee, but there are two principal aspects of the bill. First of all, it is to increase the number of the Supreme Court judges from 24 to 25. Mr. Justice Berger at the present time, as all members know, is engaged in the royal commission re the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and it's contemplated that his duties there will be concluded by the end of the year. Mr. Justice John Bouck has been appointed vice-chairman of the Canada Law Reform Commission. He assumed his appointment on May 1 of this year, and he'll be staying for two years, living in Ottawa.

As the hon. members know, the responsibility for the appointment of the judge will be that of the federal government, which will pay his salary. The support services, of course, will be the responsibility of the provincial government. This is enabling the federal government to make this additional appointment to increase our bench of the Supreme Court in this province to 25.

The second section of the Act is a complicated one. In essence it's this. Formerly a county court judge sitting as a local judge had certain specific powers given to him within section 18 of the Supreme Court Act. There was a great deal of difficulty experienced over the years as to whether or not this county court judge, sitting as a local judge of

[ Page 2243 ]

the Supreme Court, would in actual fact have certain or necessary powers to hear some of the matters before him.

Hence it has been concluded, as a result of considerable negotiation between the bar and the bench and advisers to this department and within the department, that the section would be better phrased by granting a local judge of the county court, sitting as a local judge of the Supreme Court, powers almost comparable to those of a Supreme Court justice save and except certain items that are now restricted within the statute.

Within the statute, the items wherein the county court judge will not have powers to sit as a local judge of the Supreme Court essentially are those that deal with acts that are private in nature and many of whom specifically refer to hearings or appeals or what-have-you being directed to a Supreme Court judge, so only a Supreme Court judge will have the power to sit there.

Furthermore, it is restricted under certain specified additional trials: the Insurance Act, the Occupiers' Liability Act, Families' Compensation Act. Those will still be within the total and sole jurisdiction of a Supreme Court judge, and furthermore, a local judge of the county court would not have jurisdiction with respect to criminal proceedings vis-à-vis the assize, but this does not mean, of course, Mr. Speaker, that he would not maintain his jurisdiction as a county court judge as long as he's sitting as a county court judge.

I would, therefore, move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree the bill can be discussed technically in committee, but I am glad the government has finally got around to tackling the problem of unemployment: you're increasing the number of judges to 25 from 24, and I assure the hon. Attorney-General that there will be no want of willing aspirants.

MR. LAUK: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East (laughter), I don't know whether his application was in before mine or not.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Don't take either of them.

MR. LAUK: There are a number of questions that should be asked, but I'll leave them for committee stage. The thing that is most appropriate is.... Oh, I'll leave that for committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: I think that's the thing that's most appropriate. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I regret that the hon. member left the appropriate matters to be considered in committee; however, if he has any specific questions between now and the committee stage I'd be delighted to hear from him. I would also like to inform him not to be in the slightest bit alarmed about the fact that wigs are no longer permitted in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EXTRA-PROVINCIAL CUSTODY
ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPROVINCIAL SUBPOENA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this causes me great concern: I notice a number of practitioners complain that their clients, who must call witnesses from jurisdictions at great cost, even within the province, I should say, have not been able to obtain the full

[ Page 2244 ]

measure of compensation for calling such witnesses. I realize that a certain amount of discretion should be permitted with respect to the judge awarding such costs.

With respect to this section, and without asking for an amendment at this stage, is the Attorney-General considering a more formalized guideline for the allowances that should be paid to witnesses who are subpoenaed? Sometimes witnesses are subpoenaed in a quite irrelevant way, needlessly travelling long distances to come to court, and sometimes are not even called by counsel. On some cases I've seen judges award costs against the solicitor. That's a fine discretion — if it's exercised. There has been some suggestion from the bar that this extend to a more formalized situation where the judge, in some cases, must award costs against the solicitor, or must allow that costs in compensation to witnesses be ordered. Is the Attorney-General considering that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the member for his remarks. They're not really relevant to this bill or to this section, as he and I both appreciate, because the fees that are set forth under this Interprovincial Subpoena Act, Mr. Member, only refer to something that is dealt with interprovincially, as opposed to within the confines of our own province.

But the question of remuneration for witnesses, the greater formalization of it and the greater heed given to the expenses and difficulties that many people have been put to in being witnesses in cases, is a matter that requires consideration. However, I would mention, as the hon. member knows, that it is, of course, considered to be a responsibility of citizenship to be a witness in a trial; the fees have been set and have been standardized in this province for many, many years. They are not expected to compensate a witness in performing that civil responsibility. I think, though, that we could well entertain a review of the amount that is being paid today, and I'd be most interested to find what amounts are being paid in other jurisdictions.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Interprovincial Subpoena Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: I express curiosity here. This section mentions how enactments come into effect. I would presume that this enactment comes into effect under the terms of the enactment which it is repealing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the member: section 4(2) is new, and it prevents an overlap between the repealed and the substituted provision. Section 4(3) is a rewording of the present 4(2); section 4(4) is the present 1(2). This section deals with the timing of the repeal sections.

MR. WALLACE: It's the numbers game.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At present there is a gap between the beginning of the day when a replacement enactment comes into effect and the end of the same day when, under this section, an enactment ceases to have effect. Section 4(2) is designed to close the gap, Mr. Member. We are trying to eliminate gaposis. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Will there be a full day then, Mr. Attorney-General, when this new section will not apply?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope not.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the Attorney-General's eyes to subsection (b) of 21, as indicated here, which, as I read it, would state flatly that the deputy of a minister is entitled to do anything which a minister may do. That would seem to me to be a very broad power — from a layman's reading. Could the Attorney-General tell me if that is correct?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, within the confines of the delegated power, Mr. Member, the explanatory notes that have been furnished to me by Dr. Kennedy on this point indicate that section 20 has been rewritten to simplify it as before, but it has the same content. It's a rewrite of the previous section. Apparently certain questions arose about the section

[ Page 2245 ]

when the office itself happened to be vacant, but that's now been clarified.

MR. LAUK: With the greatest conceivable respect to Dr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, through you to the learned Attorney-General, I am sure that every schoolboy can tell you that delegatus non potest delegare.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, that's good!

MR. LAUK: Do you like that?

MR. WALLACE: Don't be rude!

MR. LAUK: I think that is not just the same content. The way it is worded, it is allowing a minister who is empowered to do certain things designated to him to redelegate that authority, and constitutionally that offends the principle that....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It includes the deputy.

MR. LAUK: But it should not. It should not allow a deputy to have the same powers as a minister, with the Interpretation Act trying to do in the back door what cannot be done in the front. Are you saying that now a deputy minister has the power to sign orders-in-council and do all those other things? Are you saying that a deputy minister can be an acting minister? Are you saying that a deputy minister can sign ICBC cheques for $181 million — NSF?

I'll allow the Attorney-General to consult with counsel, Mr. Chairman, for the moment. (Laughter.) I don't know whether it has anything to do with my remarks or the membership in the Union Club.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry the Attorney-General was turned down for membership in the Union Club, but what are you going to do when you have the Law Clerk...? Anyway, I'm asking these questions. What about this kind of thing? Suggestions have been made that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should delegate the authority of various of his powers to his deputy to avoid him spending too much time. Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can delegate powers to the deputy for signing permits and oil leases. Is this what is suggested by the section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 7 pass?

MR. LAUK: Well, I was just thinking, Mr. Chairman, that it's unfortunate that the Attorney-General didn't have a better explanation from Dr. Kennedy on this matter, as it is a serious problem in administrative law and constitutional law. If the Deputy Minister of Mines can sign an oil permit, where do we go from there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, he's placed a different interpretation upon this than the government and the adviser to the government have, but I would very much like to consider his interpretation of the point in question.

I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 8.

REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a little irregular to have a point of order in the middle of a division, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Something irregular has happened that has been brought to my attention. I was intending to call a division on section 1, and I would ask leave of the committee to return to section 1 to divide on that issue. It's been granted before in committee, and I would ask that. It happened in the spring of worra-worra where Speaker Dowding said that worra-worra. (Laughter.) It was the well-known case of Worra-Worra. (Laughter.) Irrespective of what the Law Clerk says, it was done previously. I'm learning how to read lips. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I just acquaint all the members of the House with the procedures to which we are bound. The committee has no power to suspend the rules. As a result, a division was called on section 2. Now we will proceed with the division on 2 and if, following that, you wish to ask leave of the House to go back to section 1, that would be in order.

MR. LAUK: By leave of the committee?

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LAUK: That's fair enough.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

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

MR. LAUK: I ask leave of the committee that we return to section 1. It's important on the part of the opposition to have a division on that section.

Leave granted.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 14

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

Title approved.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): 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 8, Revenue Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

The acting Minister of Municipal Affairs will carry the debate.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General the acting minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: House Leader, would you like to answer that?

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see — the Minister of Public Works. I just wondered whether he could tell the House where the Minister of Municipal Affairs is today. His bill is in committee, and we were anxious to ask him questions concerning his statements that certain evidence given by Mr. Bonner and Mr. Duncan of B.C. Hydro before the public accounts committee was false and incorrect and erroneous. I was wondering why the Minister of Municipal Affairs isn't here to answer these charges. This is very, very serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we cannot in committee discuss details of things that happened in other standing committees.

MR, LAUK: Thank you for that advice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the hon. member in regard to the absence of the Municipal Affairs minister, he is representing the government at the conference on human settlements at Habitat. In deference to the concern expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I think we would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. You've heard the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw the motion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the members are prepared to debate the bill today in committee, then we will proceed with committee on Bill 17. I would so withdraw the motion.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

[ Page 2247 ]

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 3 standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to make the point on this particular section that while I agree with the principle and the practice of raising the minimum to $50 from $1, the fact is that in the case of some municipalities, particularly the smaller ones and especially those with frontage taxes, they are actually going to realize less money from the provincial government under this section than they otherwise would. Now I'm not suggesting that they're going to receive less funds in total taxes — they are not — but they are going to receive less from the province and more from their local taxpayers than they otherwise would.

I would have liked to have seen a rider or a condition on this section that the province would guarantee that through this section no municipality in the province would receive less money under the $50 minimum than they would on the $1 minimum. Unfortunately that is not there. It may be a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but I see it as simply one more way that the government is reneging on a number of responsibilities to municipalities which it formerly assumed, and especially to smaller ones.

It is unfortunate that the minister isn't here, but we have seen the disparity grants ruled out, which last year resulted in some $150,000 to the smaller municipalities in my riding. And here is another way which, in fact, is going to take away some of the responsibility that the province has assumed to these municipalities in the years past. I doubt that anything is going to be done about it, but I would like it on the record that I'm aware this is happening. I'm sure that all of the smaller municipalities around the province — medium-sized and smaller ones — didn't realize at first, but they realize now, that in fact they are going to get less money from the province because of this section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister what the reasoning was behind the raising of the $1 minimum payment to $50. Obviously the decision was that everybody who owns a home should pay at least $50 in tax. But what is the reasoning behind that, and why $50? Why not $25 or $75 or whatever? It just seems a very arbitrary decision that's been taken in this bill. I can't understand any valid reason — either arithmetical or social.

The people who previously finished up paying $1, generally speaking, would be people living in moderate or modest-sized homes who, when you take off the homeowner grant, are left with little or nothing to pay or $1 to pay. Why is this, at a time of inflation, being added to that particular group of homeowners in the province, who perhaps for the last year or two have paid $1 and now are being asked to pay $50? I just don't see any real rationale other than the arbitrary concept of ensuring that at least every homeowner pays $50. Can the minister answer that?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure how the $50 was arrived at, but I think the thinking here is that it was quite ridiculous for a lot of people to have the service they had for $1, so they raised the minimum to $50.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the same position as the member for Oak Bay. I find it difficult to understand why the $50 was arrived at, or why the tax was placed at the lower end of the scale rather than not increasing the exemption. It makes the property tax even more regressive than it is now. I'm wondering why. Perhaps the minister can answer this question as to why the homeowner grant was not increased a smaller amount and have the tax paid on the other end of the scale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

MR. SKELLY: The minister is studying that question, I think, Mr. Chairman — or answering his correspondence.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment to section 6 standing on page 9 of the orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 2248 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BUILDINGS
CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to stand in his place in the House and admit that this section gives the executive council and government of this province the right to go into deficit financing. Having done that, then, Mr. Chairman, we certainly will agree. We know that the government's in trouble, and we'll certainly agree that we'll help bail you out by supporting this and other sections of this particular bill that really and truly indicate that the government is changing a policy with this particular bill, enabling themselves to spend $200 million that they would not otherwise have had access to.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't quite hear what I suggested.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I challenge the quorum.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a challenge of quorum.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When the count was asked for there was more than a quorum in the House, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), after clueing in the speaker at the time because he wasn't able to count himself, elected to leave the House. I think it is obvious that there was a quorum at the time, and that these people are trying to cause us difficulty. I would like you to realize there was a quorum in the House when the count was asked for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the point of order was being made there was one other member leaving. Counting that member, there was a quorum at the time, hon. Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw my challenge, Mr. Chairman.

I would again appeal to the minister to stand in his place....

MR. STRONGMAN: It's part of a conspiracy.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is keep the government alert, keep the government on their toes. They're all away at coffee.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Where's the opposition?

MR. COCKE: The opposition asked me to represent them in the House, because we can only speak one at a time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 2, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to draw your attention to section 2: "There is hereby established a corporation to be known as the 'British Columbia Buildings Corporation' consisting of five directors" — and so on. It means the people who should be on it.... It's kind of a political corporation, and in a way I don't blame the government, but, on the other hand, it strikes me the government was always challenging Crown corporations of the past as having been political. Well, here we have members of the executive council, members of the public service — who are, I believe, entirely dependent for their direction on the executive council, or certainly on their minister — and then the executive council, that is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, appoints one of the directors as a chairman. The directors don't even have a chance to vote on their own chairman. So be it.

Mr. Chairman, the other aspects of this section 1ndicate to me quite clearly that we have here set up a corporation which will take a lot of the onus for future expenditures away from the Public Works department — and under those circumstances be directed by the executive council — but will provide that an opportunity is granted this government to go into deficit financing. Now if the minister would just step up and say, yes, that's what we're doing, then we'll support the section.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this section 2 is critical to the patronage powers of this bill, because

[ Page 2249 ]

it's under this section that the board of direction is constituted, and that board of direction is very clearly the tool of the government and, indeed, may be composed entirely of members of government. As the Chairman will recall, other sections exempt this corporation from the Public Services Act, and therefore the hiring and firing provisions are entirely in the hands of members of the government.

This corporation, of course, is not subject to the Purchasing Commission, and therefore it's not required to do business for construction by tenders. It's not required to obtain its materials and other purchases in ways that have been sanctioned and governed by long practices developed in the history of the British Columbia government.

I suggested to the treasury benches the other day the way that this serious defect might be remedied and the way that all accusation.of patronage could be removed from this bill, and that is by making it possible for a member of this House to sit on the board who is not a member of the party supporting the government. It seems to me that this is an opportunity that the government should welcome, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I would suggest the following amendment on section 2(1)(a), adding after the word "or" the words: "a member of the Legislative Assembly sitting in opposition to the recognized government party, or...." It seems to me that that is an amendment with a great deal of merit to commend itself to the government, one that would free them from the very reasonable public suspicion that there would be a chance that patronage might creep into the operation of this powerful and otherwise uncontrolled corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest too that this amendment is in order. It is not a directive upon the Crown. It is enabling upon the Crown and increases the flexibility of the government to make appointees that could clearly bring an impartial — or at least different — viewpoint to the operation of this very powerful board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the point that I made in second reading has to be re-emphasized here — that the composition of the proposed board under section 2 is such that this amendment, at least in some measure, minimizes the risks that are obvious in the form of such a board where the members are either members of the cabinet or members of the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tools of the government.

MR. WALLACE: In fact, Mr. Chairman, if the NDP had tried to bring in a bill like this, there would have been a tremendous outcry, and that refers to a lot of the other sections on this bill, too.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know that. You would have been the first one up.

MR. WALLACE: I propose to speak on other sections of the bill to emphasize that same principle. Perhaps one should hesitate to criticize the newspapers when, as a politician, newspapers are pretty important. But I'm amazed that there's been such little reporting in the press about the content of this bill and some of the elements of the bill as included in section 2. We have a proposal in section 2 to give tremendous power and authority to five people, all of whom have the most blatant political advantages to gain from being in this position of authority.

It would be a very timid step in the right direction, in my view, to support this amendment which the Liberal leader has brought forward. It's certainly a minimum step, inasmuch as there would be one voice on the board which would not be regarded as being motivated for purely political reasons in the making of board decisions. This refers, Mr. Chairman, to any government in power, whether it's the present one or the former one or any government in the future — that a board given this kind of authority to borrow the kind of money that is incorporated in the bill is such that really there should surely be more than just cabinet ministers and public service employees constituting the board.

As I have to say again, I think if the former NDP government had tried to bring in a bill like this, we might have had a public response by the media and many people similar to the Land Act. I have to keep saying this repeatedly; citizens today, I think, are very concerned about the ever-enlarging authority of government and the different ways in which that increasing authority is being exerted through various boards and superboards and commissions and many other arms of government which I could mention.

I find it very disappointing that this government, which stressed so strongly in the election campaign that it would reduce the size of government, reduce the power of government and minimize the encroachment of government into a variety of areas of public concern, now comes forward with this kind of bill. Not only is the intent of the bill questionable and the powers extended to the Crown corporation enormous, but even in the composition of the board it's a tight little group of cabinet ministers and public service employees where the political value of their decisions would inevitably rank as No. 1 priority in their deliberations.

I just don't believe that that would be to the

[ Page 2250 ]

advantage of the province, and I think that....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking the civil service.

MR. WALLACE: Well, one of the members interjects that I'm attacking the civil service. I'm not attacking the civil service; I'm trying to emphasize that a civil servant in this position must inevitably have some great consideration for his own security and position. It's highly unlikely that the public service employee would have much success — even if he disagreed with the cabinet members on the board — of persuading cabinet ministers to change their decision that should have been motivated in the first place by political considerations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Off with his head!

MR. WALLACE: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that having within the statute a requisite that at least one member of the opposition in the House be a member of the board, at least the public would have some kind of awareness and understanding of the fact that all the decisions were not simply made on the basis of the political advantage to the government of the day.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I ask the rhetorical question: has that coalition government got no shame at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: None, none!

MR. BARBER: For three and a half years in opposition they campaigned on the promise that government agencies and corporations should be at arm's length distance from members of government. They promised in the most recent campaign, Mr. Chairman, that they would, if they were to assume power, ensure that no longer were politicians on the boards of Crown agencies and corporations in the Province of British Columbia. They made that promise not once but a hundred times.

I support the Liberal leader's amendment; it's an excellent one. If they're going to introduce politicians at all to the boards of these corporations and break their campaign promise doing so, let them at least ensure that justice and fair play that would see members from both sides of the House on the boards of such corporations.

This coalition has broken a campaign promise, Mr. Chairman. They've broken it here again today. They persuaded the people of British Columbia that they sincerely believed that politicians do not belong on the boards of directors of these corporations. In one of their first opportunities to prove their sincerity they did nothing but disprove it. Sure enough, they have named themselves to the board of directors of the British Columbia Buildings Corp.

I support the Liberal leader's amendment. He at least has the sense, he at least has the fair play, he at least has the interest of the province at hand and in heart when he suggests that if there are to be politicians at all appointed to these boards they should come from both sides of the House and not just from one.

I myself would prefer that that amendment were not necessary because that section were not in place, and that this board was composed of persons chosen at large from the public sector, and not from that of the government. If we're not going to get that out of this coalition, they're going to break their campaign promises again and again.

At least allow members from both sides of the House to sit on the board of directors of this corporation. It's a very reasonable proposition, Mr. Chairman. I'm positive the fair-minded members of the coalition will support it, as we do too.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment put forward by the Liberal leader is worthy of support by all members of the House. I'd just point out that in the past, during our term of stewardship in the province of British Columbia, our government was roundly criticized for having members of cabinet serve as directors of the British Columbia Railway, members of the board of Hydro, and so on.

I just want to point out that in those particular Crown corporations the political representation, either from our government or the former Social Credit government, did not dominate in the way that is proposed in section 2 of this bill that is before the House where there is an absolute preponderance of political domination on the proposed board of directors, because there is very little difference between a member of the executive council and a public servant. A public servant, of course, usually the kind of public servant who is directly under the control and the supervision of the ministers that are represented on that board, I would suggest, would be extremely unlikely to strike an independent posture in terms of the decisions and the policies that were required for the direction of a Crown corporation when their boss, the minister, is hovering over them.

So unlike Hydro and unlike the B.C. Railway Co., where we had directors elected from the public at large on the basis of their business acumen, on the basis of their standing in the community, what we have before us here proposed in this bill is a creature of the existing government — a political creature of the existing government. In order to give some balance to that kind of heavy political domination so that we are reassured and the public is reassured that this is not going to be a partisan political venture, then I think the House can do no less than support

[ Page 2251 ]

the amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). I think it is important to recall the remarks that were made by opposition members in second reading on this bill, which were largely ignored by the press.

This section, section 2, is critical in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you know you cannot repeat arguments used in second reading in committee.

MR. LAUK: Would I do that? Would I do that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope not.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyone who would do that would make a mistake for a division on a vote.

MR. LAUK: With respect to section 2, it says clearly that the board of the proposed British Columbia Buildings Corp. be made up of members of the executive council or members of the public service. Dealing with those two propositions — (a) members of the executive council: it has been argued that this corporation, if it is not simply set up to do deficit financing, is set up to be a pork-barrel operation to hand out goodies to political friends of government.

That charge has been made by various individuals in society, perhaps more uncharitable than any members of this committee. Nevertheless, the suspicion and the cloud is there. When this section is placed before this committee, obviously we can conclude in no other way that that it is intended to be a pork-barrel operation handing out goodies to the friends of government and campaign donors who may be in the construction business. This goes on all the time...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I....

MR. LAUK: ...so that the amendment brought forward....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! The hon. member will remember, particularly if he renews his memories by the use of the Blues, that this same argument was used by this same member in second reading.

MR. LAUK: Well, why didn't the press print it? Because it is important. (Laughter.) This is of critical importance — the press has missed a point. The government side hasn't missed a point. They want to set up a pork-barrel operation, for heaven's sake! They're going to appoint members of the executive council....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I can sympathize with the hon. member. However, we cannot change the standing orders....

MR. LAUK: It's frustrating, isn't it, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot change the standing orders.

MR. LAUK: Dealing directly with the amendment, then, Mr. Chairman....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Why don't you call a press conference?

MR. LAUK: If they appoint members of the executive council and members of the public service, we know full well that members of the public service under the right-wing coalition have not been able to act independently and with good conscience unless they sue ministers in courts for slander and wrongful dismissal for the shameful way that they have been coerced.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: So now they are suggesting they appoint members of the public service to this board, when sitting in this House is a minister of the Crown that has to be sued by a civil servant to get justice...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and fair play.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: They expect the public to believe that members of the public service can sit independently on such a board.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Did you always want to be an actor?

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health says I have always wanted to be an actor. Boy! I'll tell you — the Minister of Health is a bad actor, a bad actor. There should be more writs served on that minister.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let us now go to

[ Page 2252 ]

the amendment on section 2.

MR. LAUK: So I think the amendment proposed by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't associate myself with those uncharitable remarks. Thousands would, but I would not.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment proposed by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), an honourable member who believes in ethics in government, arm's-length Crown corporations that will not pass out goodies to campaign donors....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I think that we should all support this amendment, and I think it should be known that if the government side does not support this amendment they are voting for pork-barrelling in this province — something that hasn't existed in this province since the old coalition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since December 11.

MR. LAUK: Since the old coalition. W.A.C. Bennett came to power arguing against pork-barrel Crown corporations, and he stayed in power for 20 years. The NDP upheld that, and now this new coalition goes back to the old coalition's tactics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member....

MR. LAUK: If they don't vote for this amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is having a great deal of difficulty keeping his remarks.... But may I read the amendment again?

MR. LAUK: It's a good amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is: to add after "or" in the fourth line the words "a Member of the Legislative Assembly sitting in opposition to the recognized government party." That is the amendment. I know you do not have it before you, but I wish....

MR. LAUK: I'm glad that Mr. Chairman read that excellent amendment out again.

Now the way to prevent any suggestion of handing out goodies to campaign donors....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There he is; he's running out of the House again to check on his Imperial Oil stock. (Laughter.)

The public could be alleviated of this suspicion and this allegation if a member of the opposition was on the board as a watchdog to ensure that the government party does not participate in this kind of pork barrelling that used to characterize the old coalition government. This is their opportunity to put at least that argument to rest.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I only rise to give my support to the proposed amendment and to simply ask: why doesn't the government just follow its good will in what it did with the auditor-general bill? We suggest that you do the same thing — to expedite the work of the auditor-general you could allow an opposition member to sit on the board of not only this Crown corporation, but perhaps you would want to consider seriously making amendments to other existing Crown corporation legislation and indicate to the public that when you bring in the auditor-general, his work will be facilitated by your assurances that there would at least be one person on the board whom we can look to, considering the credibility this person would have because of no political affiliation.

I feel that the amendment is really an opportunity for you to perhaps clear up a point that I'm sure you overlooked. I don't believe that — with all due respect to my colleague the first Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — you really wanted to deprive the people of the kind of stewardship and fiscal responsibility they deserve when it comes to the management of a public utility. So I'm merely suggesting that when you rise to close the debate on the committee you will....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a motion?

MR. BARNES: No — that you will say: "By gum, that's a good point, a very good point." I think that the Premier would go along with it. I don't think he would speak against the inclusion of opposition members on the board. Certainly if I were in your shoes I would be most pleased to refer any matters of serious consequence back to the public before making any decisions respecting some of the things you have in this bill.

When we get back to some of the other sections, I'm sure you'll want to assure us that your intentions are to guarantee that the public's interest will be

[ Page 2253 ]

served at all times. The best way to do that, really, is to put someone on the board to dissuade any idea that you are going to play favouritism for special people by appointment. I think the political scene is such today that we need to demonstrate our credibility by example and to bring forward, in fact, some of the kinds of things people have lost faith in.

I don't want to see you appoint five members from the cabinet and pick out others, perhaps from the public service, who you feel will be leaning toward any specific or special programmes that the government may have and which may from time to time be to a disinterest of good public service. It may merely have only a political consequence.

So I would just close by saying that I hope this amendment will pass. It is an opportunity for the minister to clean up a real concern in this bill. If he were to do that, I'm sure that we would have more faith in your good will respecting some of the other sections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening very carefully across the floor to the response of the coalition to the proposed amendment.

There have been two responses: one of them is the usual one of chagrin, shock and embarrassment when they realize that they've broken another one of their campaign promises, and when they realize that we know it. They have broken a promise, Mr. Chairman.

The other objection that they raised is one which I'd like to deal with now, discussing the amendment. That was the suggestion that the auditor-general is somehow in a position to undertake the same duties as would be undertaken by a member of the opposition were he to serve on the board of directors of the British Columbia Buildings Corp.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, the inaccuracy and falseness of that claim. The auditor-general serves an important function, but in a very special sense he's only around to close the barn door after the horse has run away. He cannot anticipate the work or the responsibility of the corporation — any corporation; he does not sit on the board of any corporation. The auditor-general is solely and exclusively in a position to examine the records of action already taken.

What this amendment proposes, Mr. Chairman, is that a member of the opposition — accountable, honest and not susceptible to the political pressures that members of the coalition are susceptible to — sit on the board of directors and be in on the decision-making. The auditor-general can only report after the decision has been taken. He can only report after the money has been spent. He has no power and no authority whatever to have a hand in the decision before it's made; he can only report upon it after it's been made. So it's a false argument, and should be rejected by any logical-minded member of this Legislature, to think that the auditor-general can somehow perform a function that would be performed by the amendment suggested by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson).

So I'd like to remind this House, Mr. Chairman, through you, that we need on the board of directors of this corporation a person who will speak for the public interest; a person who does not represent the political philosophy of the government in power; a person who's willing to act in the public interest in advance of any possible accusation of unusual dealings. We need a person there who's in a position to guarantee the honourable and the fair and the honest conduct of this corporation. The auditor-general can't do that. He can only make his report after it's happened. He can only speak when it's too late.

If they are going to break their campaign promise, let them at least overcome some of their shame by accepting this amendment. What objections can you have? What reasonable arguments can you present, if you intend to do your business properly, against having an opposition member on the board of directors of the British Columbia Buildings Corp.? What reasonable objection can you have? The answer's very simple, Mr. Chairman. You can have none at all if you intend to do your business honestly.

We're going to be watching the affairs of this corporation very closely indeed.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 24

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

Section 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 2254 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm appalled at this bill. I thought that the government would have wanted to bring in amendments to section 4 of this Act, which contains that terrible word "expropriation" — or otherwise construct, maintain, sell, lease.... I recall, Mr. Chairman, the terrible squeals of anguish and righteous indignation that were mouthed by members of the coalition when they sat in the opposition here. They talked about the danger of government having these broad, sweeping powers.

The Attorney-General remembers very well. He knew the words before I spoke them. He recalls the speeches he used to make. When I see the really unnecessary powers that the government has taken unto themselves in this bill, I find it absolutely amazing.

Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit Party opposed legislation that our government introduced on the basis that expropriation was implied. I recall wild and wonderful statements made by some of those people that wristwatches and personal possessions would be taken from people, on the basis of an interpretation in their mind of "otherwise acquired."

In this bill, in section 4(2)(a), we have expropriation powers spelled right out: to acquire personal property, arbitrarily, unilaterally. I see nothing in the bill, Mr. Chairman, that guarantees a fair and equitable system of arbitration to residents of British Columbia, citizens of British Columbia, who are subject to expropriation moves by the government. I see nothing that protects the interests of the private landowner or the property owner who is subject to this arbitrary expropriation. Nothing guarantees that if he disagrees with the offered price a system of fair arbitration will be accorded to him, and I wonder at the double standards of the government.

They talk about bringing in an ombudsman, an Act to provide an ombudsman to British Columbians. They talk about bringing in more enlightened legislation in terms of providing an auditor-general, and yet where it counts, in a bill such as this, they seek and take unto themselves extremely arbitrary powers, guaranteeing to citizens that are injured or find their rights abused by these powers absolutely no statutory guarantee that there will be a fair and equitable remedy in law available to them.

This is a contradiction. It's in absolute contradiction, in my view, with the government's stated policy of trying to provide a system of open government, a system of protection of individual rights in this province. I find it appalling that in further sections of the same bill, which I'll have to come to at a later point, I guess.... No, it's the same section, section 4. We find such language as: "In addition to its powers under this or any other Act the corporation, for the purposes of this Act, may, in its own name, acquire land and buildings by purchase, lease, exchange, expropriation, or otherwise." Now does that "otherwise" mean arbitrary seizure? Does it mean that they're not even called upon to go through the expropriation procedure? Does it mean that they are able to acquire against the will of the citizen without any respect to an expropriation procedure?

Further on, subsection (e) uses this language: "...which provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time." I can recall, as the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) pointed out the other day, extreme criticism coming from the Premier about the former administration having more rental accommodation than they could fully utilize at that given point in time. Here is this government that was so vocal in criticism taking unto themselves, by statutory right, far more accommodation, far more premises and chattels than they have any prospect of utilizing fully, and this by statute. I find this absolutely shocking, a complete double standard in terms of that government's position.

I wonder where the press are on this particular issue that used to zero in on the Premier's questions about X number of square feet of rental property that was not fully utilized. Here's a statutory provision for the government to take more than it actually needs for the existing purposes of government operation. I don't know what they have in mind, Mr. Chairman. It sounds rather sinister. I wonder if they intend to speculate in land, for instance. I wonder if they want to seize more land than is necessary to the day-to-day and current needs of the government with the prospect of using this arbitrary power of acquisition to simply speculate on the land market.

Yes, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is giving me the signal, and I intend to blow the whistle on this government, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do intend to blow the whistle on them, because this speculation is not idle.

I want to tell you that I come from an area of this province that has seen the kind of land speculation by an agency of the Crown which I refer to. I have seen and witnessed British Columbia Hydro acquiring by expropriation more land than was necessary to their current needs and ultimately selling back that land after subdivision to citizens of the province at highly inflated prices, far more than they paid for the land in the first place in terms of compensation to the initial owner.

I say that this is a shocking thing. To use an arbitrary power of expropriation and of acquiring something against the citizen's will flies right in the face of right to private ownership in this province, which that government pays lip service to. Here they are in this bill not even maintaining the status quo but, I submit, Mr. Chairman, going much further than anything that existed on the statute books of British Columbia in terms of intruding into the rights of

[ Page 2255 ]

ownership of private citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no assurance and this House has no assurance that this kind of arbitrary acquisitory power is going to be confined to land. Indeed, there's provision for premises. Subsection (e)(ii) goes further and says: "....which include premises suitable for commercial use and lease any such accommodation or premises to any public or private body or person." In other words, they have the specific, clearly spelled-out right to acquire, above the current needs of the government, for the purpose of speculating — for the purpose of exploiting an inflated rental market.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if their purpose in increasing the allowable rental increases to the landowners of this province was tied to their direction in this bill. I wonder if this government had an ulterior motive in mind when they increased the allowable rental increase to 10.6 per cent and removed the New Democratic Party plan of protecting small businessmen's interests in terms of commercial rentals. I wonder if they had in mind to get in there and seize, by arbitrary power, commercial development and buildings, premises beyond their needs, and then speculate and rip off on the uncontrolled rental market they have provided to the landholders in this province. These are powers that I think this government must answer for.

I can just imagine the hue and cry if our government had ever brought anything in like this. I say that it's about time that some of those northern members — those who talk about the rights of citizenship, who pass themselves off as the defenders of civil liberties and human rights in this province — it's about time you got a little starch in your spine and stood up and took a position on powers like this, in opposition to those people who sit on the treasury benches. Let's hear those voices that pass themselves off as the defenders of the free rights of citizens in the north of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: freedom-fighters!

MR. KING: Section 4(h): "subject to and in accordance with the Purchasing Commission Act, acquire by purchase, rental, or otherwise, equipment, fixtures and other property" — other property — "real or personal and movable or immovable, required for the land and buildings." My goodness! This is carte blanche in terms of expropriation rights to this government.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I remember all too well the debacle of the Columbia River Treaty, where the rights and the private property of people were, in fact, trampled over under the former Social Credit administration — where bulldozers moved onto the property because those landowners couldn't agree on an arbitrated or bargained settlement of land costs; where Hydro sent in bulldozers to bulldoze down buildings, and actually set them on fire, before any deal was made for the acquisition of those chattels from the landowner.

So I think we must take this legislation very seriously. That has happened in the past. I thought the era had gone by long ago where the rights of citizens in this province would be brushed aside in such a cavalier manner by any government. I view this extremely seriously — personal property. What are you after in order to run an effective government administration in this province? I submit that no government needs that kind of unilateral, arbitrary power. I suggest that before expropriation rights are extended any further in British Columbia, in any area, there must be a fair reappraisal of all the expropriation laws in this province. Lord knows, they're outdated and date back to the Dark Ages in terms of recognizing citizens' rights. Our administration had intended to move on this, and in fact had. I believe my colleague, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), was halfway to his goal of submitting a new bill to this Legislature which would enshrine in it the right of a fair arbitration procedure to all citizens in conflict with the government over arbitration — the right of an arbitration procedure, free from cost, to that citizen.

I suggest that before this new coalition administration intrudes further into the rights of citizens, they have an obligation to protect the citizen by providing a fair framework of law which offers redress without unusual cost to the landowner. In the past I have seen those landowners who could not agree with the government's offered price, who subsequently went to court in an effort to find a reasonable and fair resolution to their conflicts and ended up winning the case, Mr. Chairman, only to find that their costs of taking that issue to court far transcended the value that they achieved from the settlement. That's pretty empty justice in this day and age, Mr. Chairman. It's pretty empty justice when the government is willing to subject citizens of this province to those kinds of costs to protect what is theirs under law — what is theirs already under law — and should be recognized rather than taken away in arbitrary, statutory form by this government.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this language is absolutely appalling. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if perhaps my colleague is right — perhaps this is the legal profession's delight in terms of the litigation that will flow from this kind of dilemma confronting our citizens. Perhaps that's so.

What frightens me particularly, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in the Revelstoke area, in my area, once again we are being called upon as a particular rural part of this province to bear the social, environmental and economic impact of yet another dam on the Columbia River chain, which will accommodate the

[ Page 2256 ]

energy needs of all of this province, and which will undoubtedly disrupt and interfere with property rights of some of the people up there. Is this to be the direction of this new coalition government? Is this to be the way property rights — individual, personal property rights of people in this province — are going to be treated by the new administration?

I appeal to the government, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this bill. I think it is the only reasonable thing that can be done with it. As much as we agree with some parts of it, I think we must withdraw it and come in with a more reasonable and more rational provision for expropriation which recognizes and provides a mechanism of redress free from cost to all the citizens of the province. I would hate to see some of the thoughts contained in the bill — and some of them are valid — distorted and discredited by the arbitrary and really awesome powers that are contained in this bill, and which threaten the rights and the privileges of citizenship of all of the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you know we should go back a bit and ask the government — or at least the coalition; pardon me, no disrespect — how they reconcile their philosophy of being a free enterprise representative group and then turn around and utilize a method of collecting materials and lands to provide a service for the public which is one of increasing state control and state power. I don't understand their rationale in suggesting that there needs to be a building corporation that has the power to do virtually every step that has in the past been done by the private sector.

They've stated many times that government has no place in the private sector, that it should shrink its power so that it can stimulate those persons in the community who could best provide the various services that are needed. On the other hand, it proceeds to take away all of these powers. It wants to acquire land, jointly or otherwise, with other interests in the community. It's asking the power to expropriate without.... Well, it doesn't state it in this particular bill, although it makes references to expropriation laws in other provincial statutes. This isn't good enough for a bill that's as major as this. I think it should spell out exactly the procedures of expropriation. It should spell out exactly what appeal procedures are available within the legislation, so there's no question....

MR. LLOYD: It's already spelled out.

MR. BARNES: It is not spelled out in the legislation. You have to go through several Acts to find out what's happening. It's not spelled out. But you are supposedly an innovative government, Mr. Member; you are not....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the member is saying that it's spelled out and that it's been going on for years.

I think that in the last election you indicated you are interested in innovative programmes, and that you would be taking the leadership in assuring the people of British Columbia that government would not get larger, but that government would get smaller. You indicated that you wanted to see less expenditure, less government spending and more belt-tightening. What you are really saying to the public is that you are going to do your best to give them the impression that you will spend less money by creating Crown corporations. But when you ask for a Crown corporation, what you are in fact asking for is a device whereby you can expend an extra few million dollars without having to be accountable for it when it comes time to report fiscal activities for the year.

Really this is a method of deficit financing to make the government look better, and you've left no strings untouched when you ask for some of the power you've asked for.

AN HON. MEMBER: No strings untouched? (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: In other words, you've pulled them, you know. I'm sure that you have pulled all of them in making this bill as flexible as possible to meet your needs.

You've asked for the kind of management that will give you assurances that there'll be no dissenting opinions when it comes to any of your directives — two of them, from time to time, from cabinet. You've rejected the idea that there should be members from the other side of the House represented on the board.

You're asking that you be permitted, under subsection (f), to enter into joint undertakings with others for the provision of land and buildings for joint use or any other advantage to either party. I think that when you consider the implications — as the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) had indicated — of being able to go into joint ventures with others to their advantage one way or the other, it sort of sounds like you're saying that the government can now go out and join hands with free enterprise and expropriate land and decide what you're going to do with it later.

It's a nebulous kind of mandate you're asking for, with no indication of just what you mean when you say that you'll be able to enter into joint undertakings. It's wide open. Why do you need so much power? I'm really amazed.

[ Page 2257 ]

1 would like the minister, when he stands, to explain how you can talk about less government control, less government power, less government spending and all of the things that you accuse the previous administration of doing, and then seriously submit a bill that calls for total control of all of the buildings that the government will need, depriving, in fact, to some extent the private sector, which is one of the sectors you're supposed to be supporting. You're claiming that you're going to expropriate, as need be, to facilitate the operations of the various departments of government and its agents, be they corporate or otherwise. What you're saying is that you are going to take over in the private sector. Are you, or aren't you?

Again, I made a suggestion the other day about land. I was saying that maybe the government should have access to more land. Here in your bill you're saying you want to expropriate; you want to acquire land. Now what is it? Does the government want land, or does it want the public to have the land? Which is it?

I think you're on the right track, because the time is coming when governments should be assuming some responsibility for the best allocation of land for the best use of the total public, particularly when it comes to building lots, et cetera. The time has come when we've got to take land out of the speculative field. The problem I have is the dichotomy in your philosophy. It's not that I disagree with the intent of what you're doing, but it doesn't make sense. You criticized us when we were the administration for doing the very same thing, and now you're doing it with even more of a carte blanche programme than we had. That's the problem.

So I would ask that when the minister rises he would assure us that there'll be no expropriation without proper representation, and in fact that he may want to suggest amending this bill to include the steps by which appeals can be taken when it relates to private members' rights, because I think that at all costs he would want to assure all people who have worked hard and acquired their land in this province that there is no danger ever of them being deprived or in any way intimidated because of the government's wish to expand or to utilize their land or resources for public use, without them having proper compensation and having an opportunity to perhaps even just refuse. This is the kind of thing that is paramount in a free democratic society: in the end the citizens have to not be frightened by the heavy hand of government.

MR. BARBER: Section 4 is the worst and most offensive section of this bill. It is the ugliest section of the bill. This ugly section gives the government the power to take everything. You are permitted to take land, you are permitted to take properties, you are permitted to take equipment, and you are permitted to take personal effects. This is an ugly and dangerous piece of legislation.

When the minister introduced the bill, Mr. Chairman, he described the British Columbia Buildings Crop. as an ordinary little company set out to help the province do its business.

MR. LAUK: Self-supporting.

MR. BARBER: Self-supporting as well, he called it. What does it turn out when we examine the bill itself? They have powers of expropriation quite unequalled in any other legislation they've brought forward to date, and already equalled by extant legislation that can be used in emergencies if they need it. This is an ugly and dangerous section, Mr. Chairman. They don't need it.

If it's more than an ordinary little company, maybe they should tell us now and can the charade. If it is an ordinary company, you don't need these powers. You have them in other legislation already on the books. You have it and can use it in emergencies. You can use it, and you should use it delicately and with great care and with great modesty and reservation. Here it is carte blanche. In this ugly section you have the power to take property, land, buildings — moveable or immoveable — and personal property. What do you need that power for? What do you need those rights for? An ordinary little development company doesn't need them at all.

This is the worst, the ugliest, the most offensive and the least defensible part of this particular legislation. It is a greedy little attack on private property; it is a greedy little attack on private property foisted upon us by a coalition that tells us it defends private property.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about.

BARBER: What are you conducting this attack for? Why does an ordinary little building corporation need such vast powers of expropriation, if all you are going to be doing is engaging a little more co-ordinatedly in the construction of public buildings? What do you need all that power for? In whose interest should you have it?

You have here, Mr. Chairman, a section in this part 4 which is positively absurd. It's just absurd after the campaign that that coalition conducted against the New Democratic government and the rental of office accommodation, to introduce a section which states: "....provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time." How do you have the nerve to introduce a joke like that onto the floor of this government? What the government is trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is in advance cover its tracks, in

[ Page 2258 ]

advance cover its rear end, in advance find a way to protect itself against inevitable criticisms about failing to occupy office space. Sure enough, here in section 4 they have a tiny section which states: "....provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time." It's a joke; that is absurd. What are you doing introducing something like that after the arguments you have made?

Further, Mr. Chairman, the section is also offensive because it gives the opportunity in (2)(b) for the corporation to construct and maintain buildings. As I mentioned before, there are 655 employees presently in the civil service who are in estimates this year responsible for the maintenance of public buildings. The minister earlier referred to his commitment that none of these civil servants shall lose their positions. That commitment received no public play whatsoever. To my knowledge, it wasn't picked up by anyone.

I ask the minister to put that commitment in writing. I ask him to give a commitment to every public servant presently employed in the Department of Public Works in writing that not one single job is threatened by this section. I think we need that commitment in writing, Mr. Chairman, because it is clear that the commitments that we receive verbally from that coalition are worthless. We need it in writing. We need it dated and someone should witness it. I want, on behalf of 750 public servants affected by this bill, a guarantee in writing that their jobs are not in jeopardy, that they are not going to be fired. I want that guarantee in writing from the minister. Otherwise those who have followed the unhappy course of other broken coalition promises are going to be most concerned about their own jobs as the result of this piece of legislation.

There is another offensive section within section 4 generally. It is No. 3. It refers to something called the "Department of Highways and Public Works Act." There is no such Act; it doesn't exist. So I wish to call a point of order. I would like a ruling from you, Mr. Chairman, about the legal authority and precedent to include in a piece of legislation reference to another piece of legislation which does not exist. We have been unable to find a "Department of Highways and Public Works Act." It doesn't exist; it's not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BARBER: You are referring to a piece of legislation that does not exist. So I call a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Will you clarify for the benefit of all of us? I wish to take my place again after the point of order has been handled, whether it is permitted....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member knows that there is no point of order because the Chair does not and cannot be expected to have any knowledge of what legislation does exist or what legislation may exist. The member is asking the Chair to rule beyond its authority. There is no point of order.

MR. LAUK: No, no, beyond his knowledge.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, could you advise me then how in committee — where I am told this is the proper place to examine such details of legislation — it is possible to obtain a ruling about a reference within this sloppily drafted legislation to an Act that doesn't exist? How do we deal with this problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, if you see anything in the bill which does not meet with your full approval, you may pass an amendment.

MR. BARBER: Well, that still doesn't quite answer the question, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me quite unparliamentary to include in here a reference to an Act in one title — all in italics, one line — "the Department of Highways and Public Works Act." Would perhaps the government accept an amendment? Might the minister responsible nod his head yes or no? Would you accept an amendment to correct a very bad and clearly sloppily drafted piece of this Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the proper procedure would be to draft an amendment and have it forwarded to the table. If the amendment was found to be in order, then the House would act on it.

MR. GIBSON: The minister hasn't read the bill.

MR. BARBER: Well, the point has been made. I expect an amendment will be forthcoming. This is badly drafted. They should correct their mistake as quickly as they can.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by repeating that this is a greedy little attack on private property. It gives you powers you don't need. It gives you authority you shouldn't have, and I would like to point out once again the obvious, Mr. Chairman. If our government had brought in such a piece of legislation, there would have been demonstrations inspired by the Social Credit Party up and down the length of British Columbia. You would have been attacking this here, there and everywhere. You would have been jumping on this section 1n particular for hours upon hours upon hours. You would have made this the major debate of the session.

We're trying to handle it a little more responsibly. We're asking you — and I follow and support the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) — to withdraw the bill. Reconsider it, bring it back, delete proposals for expropriation. Correct the

[ Page 2259 ]

language, and don't refer to bills that don't even exist. Give it to us in a form that we can support. In its present form you have the authority to take the property, the belongings and the goods of every citizen in British Columbia. You don't need that power, and you shouldn't have it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we can only have one member standing at a time, and the Chair recognizes the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

AN HON. MEMBER: I've been jumping up and down here all afternoon....

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I can only preface my remarks by saying that in this chamber the more things change, the more they stay the same. I say this quite sincerely. I'm not trying to just be facetious.

I was so surprised by the power in this bill, and so reminded of the infamous Bill 42, that I took the trouble to get the original copy of Bill 42, before it was amended. Really, when you put the two bills in perspective, Bill 42 didn't go half as far as this government is going in section 4 of the present bill.

There are phrases in section 7 of the original Bill 42 which gives authority under section 7 "to purchase or otherwise acquire land," and another subsection "to acquire and hold personal property and dispose of personal property so acquired," et cetera. I can remember the vehemence with which the Social Credit Party, as the official opposition, and in particular the hon. member who is now the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), quoted and requoted and repeated ad nauseum — if I can use a little Latin phrase, Mr. Chairman; it seems to be popular these days....

AN HON. MEMBER: Et cetera! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Quo vadis?

MR. WALLACE: Yet when you compare the language of Bill 42 with the language of the bill we are now debating in the particular section 4, the comparison is dramatic. It really is.

While we are trying to deal with it responsibly, and not inflame the public with exaggerated interpretations of what the bill says, this bill actually goes far and beyond anything that was made possible in Bill 42.

In particular the question of the word "expropriation" just simply was certain to raise fireworks in this House whenever it was even implied, never mind written as the word "expropriation," when it was implied in some of the NDP legislation that the phraseology could be interpreted as meaning expropriation.

I can remember debates going on fast and furious in this House over whether or not the three words "or otherwise acquire" — which are included in the original Bill 42, section 7.... And here not only have we got a bill which talks about "otherwise acquiring," but we've got a bill which spells it out very clearly that the power of expropriation is given to this new Crown corporation with a board of directors of five people who will all be cabinet ministers or public servants.

Now I'm absolutely amazed that this bill has not attracted the attention of the great majority of the people of British Columbia. Somebody is asleep at the switch, and I don't know who it is. But even if you are not all that interested in politics, as many people are, there can be no other interpretation of section 4 than that it provides enormous power for this new Crown corporation.

It should be read into the record, really, Mr. Chairman; subsection (2) of this particular section says:

"In addition to its powers under this Act and any other Act, the corporation, for the purposes of this Act, may, in its own name acquire land, and buildings by purchase, lease, exchange, expropriation or otherwise...."

And it goes on to detail many other actions that it may take under section 4.

1 say in passing, Mr. Chairman, that the expropriation study that was done by the Law Reform Commission and tabled in this House somewhere around 1971, as I recall, made the point that expropriation is such a tangled mess in this province, anyway, that we should have one single Act which would incorporate expropriation powers rather than having bits and pieces on expropriation distributed through I forget how many individual Acts — something of the order of 25 or 30 individual pieces of legislation.

This bill is in the hands of this particular government that went to the people last year as freedom-fighters, fighting for the freedom of the individual, who any day after this Act is passed can be told that the government wants to have a government office on his backyard and they're going to expropriate and that's it. Is that freedom-fighting? It's a strange kind of way to interpret freedom-fighting.

I've got an ad here for the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford). He's a freedom-fighter, and I know that he must be cringing to listen to this debate and this bill. Here's an ad from Skeena, and it says: "Don't be fooled. The real issue in this election is big government versus personal freedom. Vote Social Credit — SHELFORD X — your man for Skeena."

MR. GIBSON: The freedom-fighters are pretty punchy now.

[ Page 2260 ]

MR. WALLACE: It's very interesting. I know the member for Skeena pretty well. Yesterday he stood up and spoke against another piece of bad legislation, and then he ducked the vote.

Now here we have another completely contradictory piece of legislation, though whatever the member for Skeena really believes, I know he's got no time for this legislation, and I presume he'll duck the vote on section 4.

But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this is a serious issue. Some of us are perhaps being a little flippant in some of our remarks, but it is an issue of the most far-reaching consequence which I'm not about to pass over lightly and which I think the electorate in British Columbia are not well informed on.

I referred on second reading to the other kind of contradiction where we had this government, when it was in opposition, lambasting the NDP government for renting space that it was unable to use for one reason or another. They come back into this House as government, and they have the gall to write section 4(2)(e), by which they can acquire or construct land and buildings which provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time.

I have to shake myself to know if I'm really reading the very words when I think back on the debates we had in this House when the sides were reversed. The present Premier stood down here day after day in question period and quite rightly embarrassed the then Minister of Public Works with documented evidence of locations where space was empty and where a lease had many months to run and where the government apparently had no purpose for the space at that time.

Now we find there's been an election, the teams have changed sides in the House, and here we have this government coming back in and bringing in this kind of legislation which, in the clearest possible language, wants to acquire land and buildings that would provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time. This is the belt-tightening government that wants to be very careful and prudent and businesslike.

The only conclusion you can come to, Mr. Chairman, is that the government acknowledges that inflation is with us and will continue and that they're going to buy land and buildings in a speculative way so that maybe if they need it a year later it will then be worth more money than it was a year earlier. The second part of 4(2)(e) states that "it could acquire land and buildings which include premises suitable for commercial use."

To get back to this kind of ad saying that this party's opposed to big government, here we've got the government wanting to go into the marketplace and compete with commercial enterprises who rent buildings. Another aspect of taking over places like concerns such as Plateau Mills and then converting them into Crown corporations is that you don't pay income tax, so you can compete with other forest companies under conditions favourable to the government. I thought that was just the kind of thing that socialist governments do. They want to take advantage of statutes written to their favour to go into the marketplace and acquire premises suitable for commercial use. I have to think maybe they're going into competition with Block Bros.

MR. GIBSON: They're going to be blockbusters.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman this is an absolutely incredible bill just months after the election which was fought so basically on the free-enterprise-versus-socialism theme. If there's one thing that depicts socialists, it's their great affinity for having governments get into every aspect of the marketplace and put their claws on just about anything they can find — not very effectively and not very efficiently — but the principle is for socialist governments to give themselves this kind of power.

If there's one sentiment that raises the hackles of every individual citizen, it seems, in British Columbia, it's when you interfere with that individual's right to retain ownership of his land. And we've had this same party in opposition and on the election platform speaking in the most vociferous way about the rights and freedom of the individual to own his own land and hold his own land and not to be interfered with or penalized by government. They're hardly through their first session as government in this House and they bring in a bill which is just.... Section 4 gives 10 times the authority to this Crown corporation that was ever suggested in the Land Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WALLACE: The sad part above all others, Mr. Chairman, is the apparent apathy or ignorance of the people of this province as to what is in this bill. While second reading of the bill appeared to draw very little attention — and the reports which I read in the press were minimal — I hope that at least in this discussion in committee the full impact and the consequences and ramifications of section 4 are better publicized far and wide across this province.

With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment, against the thought that it's unlikely we can have this bill completely withdrawn, although that would certainly be my personal wish. The bill has simply too many powers that are not desirable and which are totally contradictory to the thinking that many voters supported when they put this party into power. Time and time again voters spoke to me during the election, and all they wanted to do was get rid of the NDP. They really weren't all that sold on the Social Credit Party, but they were

[ Page 2261 ]

certainly absolutely convinced that, at any price, they had to get rid of the NDP. I don't know how often I was told that by voters.

One of the reasons these same voters were so intensely anxious to get rid of the NDP was because of this kind of legislation that takes away freedom and rights of the individual and gives it to big government. This party went on the election platform and said: "Well, put us back there and we're going to cut down on the power and size of government, and we'll give you back the individual rights that these guys have taken from you." We're not here any length of time in the first session and it's an Alice in Wonderland situation, and it gets curiouser and curiouser.

AN HON. MEMBER: The red queen.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: So I have to say that if I had my druthers, this bill should be completely withdrawn. There are so many areas of the bill that are unacceptable. But knowing as I do the ways of governments, I think the least we can hope to do is make some amendments which will improve the bill. On that basis, for starters, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that in section 4, line 8, the word "expropriation" be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for having sent his copy of the amendment earlier and given the Chair an opportunity to take a look at it, to evaluate it, and it does appear to be in order. The amendment says that in section 4, line 8, the word "expropriation" shall be deleted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a — moment to support this amendment, which I think is a very excellent one, in the hope that it will pass. Then there are other consequential amendments which should be made in this section. Expropriation is a very, very serious move, and it's a power that should be exercised only by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council or by the Legislature itself. It should not be delegated to this kind of pork-barrel corporation to be exercised at the whim of a five-person board of directors not controlled in any way by this Legislature.

MR. WALLACE: That freedom-fighter over there.

MR. GIBSON: That freedom-fighter opposite, Mr. Chairman, said, "How would you assemble that?" I'd ask that member to read some of the statutes of British Columbia. The Department of Public Works Act has all of the authority necessary for the assembly of land in this province. It simply doesn't have to be delegated to this kind of corporation. The adequate powers exist. It should be left at that. This is an excellent amendment, and I support it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 24

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

MR. WALLACE: In following up on the earlier remarks that I made, I would introduce a second amendment to section 4 which would delete subsection 2(e); that is, deleting the part dealing with the acquisition of more accommodation than is required, and it also deals with premises suitable for commercial use. I so move the amendment to section 4, to the effect that we should delete subsection 2(e).

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 24

Mr. Wallace requests that leave be asked to record

[ Page 2262 ]

the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister which he's been asked but which he hasn't seen fit to answer yet, and that is the reference in section 4(3) to an Act which is called the "Department of Highways and Public Works Act."

Mr. Chairman, I have searched diligently through the statute books. I can find a Department of Highways Act and I can find a Department of Public Works Act, but no Act as named in this section. I would ask the minister if he can clarify to the House how he proposes to exercise powers under an Act that doesn't exist?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the question asked by the Liberal leader is a perfectly valid one in committee. We're making ourselves absurd if we're granting powers to a public corporation to be exercised under an Act which doesn't exist. It seems to me that the question ought to be answered.

I ask the Minister of Public Works directly: what does the reference to this new Act mean? Is there going to be legislation to this effect at this session? If not, will the minister take it out? Otherwise we're just being totally irresponsible in this committee.

Lack of an answer, Mr. Chairman, would be total arrogance and contempt of this Legislature. We may have been this and that in government, but at least we answered questions of this kind. If this big government comes before the Legislature and refuses to answer simple questions about the wording of an Act which, as has been pointed out, does not exist, then that is total arrogance and contempt of the Legislature. What's the use of having a committee system? What's the use of being elected to this Legislature, doing our duty and then having a government sit like stones and sphinxes and refuse to answer simple questions about a bill? If the people in the back bench could support that kind of action from the front bench, good luck to you. I can't.

1 ask the Minister of Public Works directly: what's the explanation for this apparent absurdity in an Act which we as responsible legislators are being asked to pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I must remind you again that we can ask questions in committee of ministers but we cannot insist on answers.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I can get the minister off the hook. I'm not going to make a speech; I'm just going to submit an amendment that would bail him out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, good!

MR. COCKE: The amendment is to delete section 4(3), and then he's off the hook.

Amendment negatived.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress, further reports that divisions did take place in committee and asks leave to have them reported in the House, and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 2263 ]

APPENDIX

The amendments below are referred to on page 2247:

17       The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, to amend as follows:

Section 3, page 2, lines 15 and 16: By striking out "and the principal supporter of your household".

Section 6, lines 2 to 16: By deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) Where an owner of an eligible residence or the occupant of an eligible apartment residence is of the full age of 65 years at any time during the year in which the current-year taxes are levied, or is over 65 years, the words

(a) "$330 or more, $280;" in subsection (1) (a) shall be read as "$381 or more, $380;",

(b) "$329.99 or less" in subsection (1) (b) shall be read as "$380.99 or less" and '150" shall be read as "$l", and

(c) "$280" in subsection (3) (a) shall be read as "$380"

and the provisions of subsection (1) or (3) shall be construed accordingly, and the occupant of the eligible apartment residence shall benefit to the full amount of the grant to which he is entitled."