[ Page 3347 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Massey tunnel fire hazard. Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3347

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Performance of ICBC. Mr. Cocke — 3347

Teacher salaries settlements. Mr. Gibson — 3347

Construction industry dispute. Mr. Wallace — 3348

Ownership of B.C. Cellulose. Mr. Lea — 3348

Safety of Washington state nuclear generating station. Mr. Skelly — 3349

Discontinuance of PNE dog show. Mr. Barrett — 3349

Future of White Lake observatory. Mr. Wallace — 3350

Mineral Resource Tax Act (Bill 57) Committee stage.

Amendments to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3350

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3350

On section 2 as amended.

Mr. Lauk — 3351

Mr. Barrett — 3354

Mr. Gibson — 3357

Mr. King — 3361

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3362

Division on section 2 as amended — 3362

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3363

Amendments to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3363

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3363

Amendment to section 2 1.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 3363

Division on third reading — 3363

Mineral Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 30) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3364

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act (Bill 28) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Levi — 3364

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3365

Mr. Wallace — 3366

Mrs. Wallace — 3367

Ms. Brown — 3367

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3368

Mr. Levi — 3369

On section 4.

Mr. Levi — 3370

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3370

Mr. Levi — 3371

On section 7.

Ms. Brown — 3371

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3372

Mr. Levi — 3372

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3372

Amendment to section 7.

Mr. Barnes — 3373

On section 8.

Mr. Levi — 3373

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3373

On section 11.

Ms. Brown — 3373

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3374

Amendment to section 16.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3374

On section 16 as amended.

Mr. Levi — 3374

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3374

Ms. Brown — 3375

Mr. Levi — 3375

On section 17.

Mrs. Wallace — 3375

On section 18.

Ms. Brown — 3376

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3376

Mrs. Wallace — 3376

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3376

On section 20.

Mr. Levi — 3377

Amendment to section 22.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3377

Amendments to section 25.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3377

On section 26.

Mr. Levi — 3377

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3377

On section 29.

Ms. Brown — 3377

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 3377

Division on third reading — 3378

Motion

Sittings of committee to select an auditor-general.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 3378

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 77) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. King — 3378

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3378

Mr. Wallace — 3378

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3379

On section 3.

Mr. King — 3379

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3379

On section 4.

Mr. King — 3379

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3380

Amendment to section 7.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3381

Division on third reading — 3382

Public Construction Fair Wages Act (Bill 83) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. King — 3382

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3382

Division on third reading — 3383

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) . Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3383

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Macdonald — 3383

On the amendment to section 1 as amended.

Mr. Lauk — 3384

Mr. Macdonald — 3384

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3384

Mr. Lauk — 3385

Mr. Wallace — 3386

On section 1 as amended.

Mrs. Wallace — 3388

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3389

Division on third reading — 3389

Public Service Benefit Plans Act (Bill 64) . Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 3389

Report and third reading — 3390

Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill

72) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3390

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 19 76 (Bill 6 1) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 3390

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3390

Report and third reading — 3390

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

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 3390

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 3390

On the amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3391

Mr. Lea — 3391

Mr. Gibson — 3392

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 3392

Mr. Wallace — 3393

Mr. Gibson — 3393

Division on the amendment — 3393

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 3393

On the amendment to section 4.

Mr. Cocke — 3394

Division on the amendment — 3394

On section 6.

Mr. Lauk — 3395

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 3395

On section 7.

Mr. Barber — 3395

On section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 3396

Mr. Wallace — 3396

On the title.

Mr. Barber — 3397

Royal assent to bills — 3398

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'd like permission to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MASSEY TUNNEL FIRE HAZARD

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd like to make a report to the House on the fire hazard in the Massey Tunnel referred to in the press.

The Massey Tunnel was completed in 1958. It is 2,165 feet in length, consisting of two traffic tubes with two lanes in each and 18-in. safety curbs. It is equipped with a sprinkler system and emergency doors, a fire extinguishing system and an emergency ventilating system.

The emergency doors and the fire extinguisher are in place, and to the best of our knowledge are fully operative. These are serviced regularly. The emergency ventilating system was used to clear smoke in the tunnel from a recent automobile fire.

In 1969 the sprinkler system was put out of service. It was found to be almost impossible to maintain it, due to deterioration and inadequacy of design. Prior to 1969, when the sprinklers were disconnected, discussions were held with the fire marshal's office in Vancouver. Their opinion and advice was that the chief hazard in the tunnel was rupture of a motor-vehicle gasoline tank following a motor-vehicle accident, and they recommended the sprinklers not be used, as they would serve only to spread the burning gasoline down the gutters through the tunnel. The tunnel profile has a sag in the road grade to the centre of the tunnel. The emergency doors provide access between the northbound and the southbound tubes.

There are signs in advance of the tunnel notifying truckers about the regulations concerning the transportation of dangerous goods through the tunnel. These regulations are contained in regulations pursuant to the Highways Act. This prohibition is enforced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is most detailed and cannot be summarized in this statement.

The accident which brought this matter up occurred June 12 at 8 p.m. A gasoline tank on a truck came off and burst into flames. The tunnel operator called the Delta fire chief and got response from the No. 10 road station who came to the scene, controlled the fire and put it out, There were no casualties.

The Minister of Highways and Public Works, in a statement, has given instructions that the safety features in the tunnel — safety doors, fire extinguisher, and emergency ventilating system — are to be rechecked to ensure that they are working properly. The regional highway engineer stationed in Burnaby is meeting with the fire chiefs today to determine what their recommendations are to improve safety in the tunnel. Everything possible will be done to ensure the safety of the travelling public.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no cover-up as the press reported this morning. It is a No. 1 priority to get this cleared up to everyone's satisfaction. I have so far received no written communication from Delta council on this matter, nor from any other official body. The department is prepared to cooperate immediately with the fire authorities and other related authorities to maximize the safety of this facility for the travelling public.

Oral questions.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I just wonder if there are going to be any more cabinet members here in a few moments.

MR, SPEAKER: Do you have a question, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: Yes, but there's nobody to ask the question to.

PERFORMANCE OF ICBC

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in charge of ICBC. The Minister of Education has told us on a number of occasions that he's having difficulty advising how many cars there are registered in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I think I can help that minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a question, it's a statement.

MR. COCKE: I'll ask my question in good time. Don't you talk to me about statements.

Mr. Speaker, it was said on June 28 by Jerry Brown, supervisor of the inspection service for B.C., that they haven't plugged in the computer yet. They can't even tell what cars are tested and what cars aren't.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister one question. The question is: when is this businesslike government going to get down to business and produce, as they said they would, with ICBC?

TEACHER SALARIES SETTLEMENTS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano):

[ Page 3348 ]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question to the Minister of Education. Last Monday the minister informed the House that the school boards had the choice of referring or not referring teachers' salaries to the AIB. Is it not, in fact, true that under the Act the school boards would be violating the terms of the Act if they did not submit those salaries for settlement?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the legal counsel for the B.C. School Trustees Association and the Attorney-General's department that that is correct — that the school boards would be in violation if they did not refer the settlements. The Department of Education is not responsible for that.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, then, if it is the legal opinion of the BCSTA that the school boards must submit them, is the minister aware that if the AIB orders a rollback of teachers' salaries the school boards will then have a choice of violating the orders of the AIB or violating section 142 of the Public Schools Act, which states that "an award of a salary arbitration board under this Act is final and binding on the board and association to which it applies." Is the minister aware of that direct conflict?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as with all cases involving the anti-inflation legislation, it takes precedence. That is the opinion of our solicitors. Presumably that contingency was taken into account at the time the legislation was drafted.

MR. GIBSON: Is the minister then saying that a federal Act can override a specific provincial Act in a field such as education which is specifically provincial in jurisdiction? Is the minister saying that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, that's not what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that the legal opinion of the Attorney-General's department is that the Act takes precedence inasmuch as we have a provincial Act and we have an agreement with Ottawa under that provincial Act.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DISPUTE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, through you to the House Leader, could I ask if in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) one of the ministers is functioning as acting minister during this question period? Both yesterday and today the Minister of Labour has been absent at a time when we are eager to ask questions about a very important matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The only thing I could suggest, Hon. Member, is that the House Leader could take the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Labour.

MR. WALLACE: The other alternative is that the House Leader can inform us whether there will be a statement likely forthcoming from the minister, who, I can understand, is heavily committed with meetings today. Could I ask then, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the House Leader can assure us that there will be statement later today on the construction industry dispute?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour, I am sure that if the Minister of Labour has something to report to the House he can be given leave in the House later. I cannot confirm definitely that he will have a statement, but if any progress is being made I am sure he will be pleased to report to the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the House Leader again: Since it appears that the session of this Legislature may well end today, and since special legislation may prove to be necessary in the construction industry, can the minister give us any indication whether or not decisions have been made by the government to intervene in the dispute?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I can't give the hon. member that information. I will repeat that if there is a statement of policy that can be made this afternoon on the pending situation of the construction workers, it will be done this afternoon.

OWNERSHIP OF B.C. CELLULOSE

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Mines and Forests. A few weeks ago I asked the minister if there had been any action on the part of the government to sell B.C. Cellulose. In the last couple of days Ray Williston, the new person in charge, has said that part of his terms of reference is to look around for a buyer for B.C. Cellulose. Does the minister have anything to tell the House at this point?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, no, I don't have anything to tell the House. When I answered that question in the past, there had been no moves made to dispose of B.C. Cellulose. Whether there have been since the new president took over, I do not know.

MR. LEA: A supplementary. Okay, let's get to the bottom of it. Has there been any action? Is that the terms of reference for Mr. Williston? You're the

[ Page 3349 ]

minister in charge. I would like to know whether to your knowledge Mr. Williston has been told to look around for a buyer for B.C. Cellulose. He says he has. What do you say?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the answer is no. Mr. Williston, the president of B.C. Cellulose, is now reporting to the Premier. Responsibility for the Crown corporations is best thought not within the realm of the Minister of Forests when these corporations deal with the forest industry.

MR. LEA: Is the minister on the board of B.C. Cellulose or Canadian Cellulose?

MR. WATERLAND: For the present time yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister is telling us that he is on the board. Has there been a meeting of the board of directors in the last three weeks?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Supplementary to the member of the board of B.C. Cellulose, the Minister of Forests: as a member of the board, has Mr. Williston been authorized to establish a policy on his own without authorization of the board — that is, to go ahead and look for a buyer for Can-Cel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government in dealing with the Crown corporations will be decided by the government. These policies will be initiated and carried out by the president of British Columbia Cellulose Corp. As you know, policy matters are not subjects that can be brought up in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister, who said that policy decisions are made by the government, be in a position now to assure the House that if Mr. Williston is making moves to seek a buyer of Can-Cel, he will be dismissed for making the move without authority?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, for a long time now prior to the last election, during it and afterwards this government has said that it is not going to continue ownership of Crown corporations in the forestry sector. We've also said that we're not going to dispose of these at any fire sale. These matters will be looked at over a period of time and the ultimate decisions will be made by the government when the time is right.

MR. LEA: Is the Minister of Mines aware that the Premier during the election campaign sent a telegram to the Social Credit candidate in Prince Rupert saying it would not be sold? Is he aware of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: At a fire sale.

MR. LEA: No, no fire sale. He just said it would not be sold. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I am not aware of that.

SAFETY OF WASHINGTON STATE
NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question for the energy minister. I have been informed that a nuclear generating station will be built 32 miles south of the Canadian boundary at Sedo Woolley and that it will be built nine miles from a seismic fault and a short distance from an active volcano. I understand that hearings are being held in July and August of this year, and that there is a danger to Canadian citizens should anything happen at this nuclear plant near Sedo Woolley. I'm wondering if the minister of energy will be making any representation to the United States government at those hearings or to the state of Washington with regard to the danger which that plant constitutes for Canadian citizens in the metropolitan area.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before the hon. minister answers, I think I should point out to you that his official title is Minister of Transport and Communications.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, that matter is under active consideration.

MR. SKELLY: A short supplementary. Would the minister be willing to meet today with representatives from groups opposing that plant who are in Victoria today?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Possibly, Mr. Speaker, but it will depend on the progress of legislation in the House.

DISCONTINUANCE OF PNE DOG SHOW

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Provincial Secretary. It relates directly from an inquiry from a constituent of mine concerning action taken by the PNE board, Mr. Speaker, about the discontinuance of a dog show at the PNE. There have been a number of people who are very upset over this

[ Page 3350 ]

decision. The amount of money that's involved is relatively minor. These people have been concerned that a pattern that has been built up is being interrupted. I know that it is not a major event, but it does affect a large number of people, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I received a petition from the same group of dog owners and also a visit in my office from the president of the organization. He explained their problem. I have suggested to him that he make representation to the board of directors. I have asked the president to make that presentation available to him where he can deal directly with the PNE board of directors and present their case. We'll leave it with the PNE board to make the decision and I think they'll act wisely.

FUTURE OF WHITE LAKE OBSERVATORY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier, I would direct my question to the Provincial Secretary. I'm sorry that she's getting all of the questions this afternoon.

There is a very serious situation developing at the astrophysical observatory at White Lake near Penticton in which construction is about to go ahead — on electrical appliances and other equipment — which will seriously interfere with the functioning of the observatory. Millions of dollars have already been spent on it, and it has a high rating in the national scene.

I realize this is primarily a federal problem, but numerous approaches have been made to the highest levels of the federal government without response. Since time is of the essence, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would give a commitment that the government will make an approach to Prime Minister Trudeau, who has already been approached by the scientists at White Lake, seeking some intervention to prevent what may be a permanent, serious impairment to the functioning of the observatory.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the problem. I'll get further information from your staff and from my own department who will have some information on it. I'll make a commitment to look into it before the week is out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: With leave of the House, I would be glad to table the document which outlines the....

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Member, the question period is terminated. If you wish to ask leave of the House to table a document, I am sure that the House would perhaps consider that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, so the House knows exactly what I'm tabling, it is a simple outline of the material as presented by the astrophysical observatory committee, the chairman of which is Mrs. Doreen Adams. It outlines the essential problem that has now come to a critical phase. I ask leave to table this document.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files an answer to a question. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files the annual report of the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

Hon. Mr. Davis files the auditor's report and financial statement for the B.C. Harbours Board for the year ended March 31, 1976.

Orders of the day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 1 standing on the order paper in my name. (See appendix.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: By the way, it should be drawn to the attention of the House that there are three amendments to section 1 and all three are moved in one motion.

Amendments approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to section 2 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Do you put the amendments prior to debate on the section? Is that the idea?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendments are moved on first and then we move on the section as amended,

[ Page 3351 ]

Amendments approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. LAUK: It seems to me that the minister has swung the pendulum from one side of the taxation structure drastically to the other. It seems to me that the old Mineral Royalties Act perhaps needed some changes in the face of changing world market conditions, in the fact of federal encroachment on resource taxation within the province. But now, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of this section and others, the mining producers in this province who come under this Act pay less tax today than they paid under the previous Social Credit administration — less tax today. It is a total and complete sellout. I don't think it needs to be repeated.

There are many things wrong with this statute, section 2 being perhaps the most fatal. It seems to me that the minister is overzealous and overly accommodating to the mining industry. To rectify a small problem he has overcompensated. I regret that very much because the people of British Columbia are paying for his mistakes and his lack of knowledge with respect to the industry itself.

What can you say when this section was drafted by a representative of the mining industry? What can you say when the government is not at arm's length from that industry that is directly affected by this taxation legislation? Who is paying for this kind of collusion, if you like? The people of the province of British Columbia — they are the ones who are paying. The tax that the mining producers do not pay, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia pay, by an extra 2 per cent now on sales tax, by an increase in their income tax, by an increase in their ferry rates, their insurance rates, their gas rates and so on. What happens when this bill comes down and is finally passed and section 2 is approved and assented to? There will be greater pressure on the government to raise the taxes to the ordinary people of this province even more.

It's not just a sellout. It's not just a giveaway of our resources to the few major corporations that control the mining industry. It's not just losing something from our government coffers. It is imposing a pressure to increase taxes and rates even further on the ordinary people of British Columbia. It's a sad thing indeed.

The minister has always argued, Mr. Chairman, that this increases the number of jobs in the mining industry and that under the NDP administration there was a loss of jobs. Let's rectify that statement now, that myth that obviously he believes, among others, fed to him by the mining industry through large dosages of "Jurgen Laution." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's terrible! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That proves it's time we should all go home.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that terrible? That is awful. I withdraw that remark, not because it's unparliamentary but because it's a bad pun. That may be a bad pun, Mr. Chairman, but the bad joke is on the people of British Columbia.

I think that this pressure for increased taxation, being a sellout to the industry, does not create the jobs that the minister talks about. He talks a myth about the NDP administration destroying jobs in the mining industry, In 1971 there were several thousand jobs fewer in the mining industry than in 1973, during the administration of the NDP. These are facts. He says that the policies of the NDP destroyed jobs. There were more jobs in 1973 and 1974 under the NDP administration than ever before in this province. There were more mines opened during that short period of time in office of the NDP than during the several terms of the previous Social Credit administration. There were many more mines closed, and the minister knows this.

But, you know, when all you do is talk to the Jurgen Laus and the mining executives of the world and not to a balanced group of people as well, you're going to get this unbalanced view of the world. I think the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) forgot to send that minister a gift. He sent everyone a gift. He sent the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) a shovel, and he sent other gifts. He should have sent a gift to the Minister of Mines — a pair of rose-coloured glasses,

MR. D. BARRETT (Minister of Opposition): With coal dust on the edges.

MR. LAUK: With a little bit of coal dust on them.

That minister really is one of the most naive, in terms of his portfolio, in the cabinet benches. I think that the opposition has made its position clear. It's regrettable that section 2 is before us today, Mr. Chairman — most regrettable. The real taxation paid is not 17.5 per cent; there will be nothing paid. This is an elaborate Act, section 2 being one out of — how many sections? — 53 sections, and when you come down to the bottom end, the mining industry pays zero under this Act — zero — and you know it, Mr. Minister, you know it. They are paying less tax than they've ever paid before.

I think that by this pendulum moving the other way you've also created another problem. The minister has argued that section 2, among other sections in this Act, is clearly going to avoid the high-grading caused by a royalty system when in fact the major resource economists — not the mining

[ Page 3352 ]

executives but the major resource economists — of this country say that this Act will do the opposite. It will do the opposite. When you've got taxation holidays in the first few years of operation, there is high-grading like you've never seen, and little villages that are.... Oh, don't frown at me! You just came out of the bush, Mr. Minister. Listen to the resource economists. They know.

You get little villages all over this province set up under section 2 to support small mining operations and large mining operations. The high-grading takes place. There is no balance of production over the years, and the villages close down during the busts and open up again during the booms. There is nothing sadder in this province than to go through village after village and town after town where the schools are closed, where the streets are empty. Under section 2, those schools are closed and the streets are empty.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman....

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Do you want my handkerchief?

MR. LAUK: Oh, listen to the arrogance of the Minister of Economic Development! He says do I want his handkerchief.

Yes, the people are crying now, Mr. Chairman, I say through you to the Minister of Economic Development. But they're going to take action at the next general election. They're crying now because of your 19th century economic policies. No wonder you run out of the House — you're embarrassed; you're ashamed. The people are paying increased taxes and insurance rates, and it's all right for the millionaires' club to sit there and say: "Do you want my handkerchief?" The Marie Antoinettes of British Columbia. "Let them eat cake," says the Minister of Economic Development. He's all right; he's a millionaire.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, would Neale Adams lie? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did you fire Hart Horn?

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now section 2, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: section 2 says clearly: "Would Neale Adams lie?" (Laughter.) Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

The problem with you millionaires is that you have no sensitivity to the ordinary people of British Columbia, the families who are struggling trying to pay increased taxes and rates in this province while you're letting the major resource industries go off scot-free. Who owns that resource? Who owns the copper? Who owns the copper that is taxed under section 2, Mr. Chairman? Is it Cominco? Bethlehem? Barrier Reef?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: And what stocks do you own again?

Not those people, but the public, the people of British Columbia. We own those resources. Bethlehem didn't pay for those claims; they just staked them. They didn't pay the millions of dollars they should pay for our copper that's shipped around the world. Where is the justice, Mr. Chairman? Where is the justice when you let major multinational corporations come into this bush-league territory controlled by a bush-league government and strip the land of its mineral resources and leave laughing. The flim-flam boys — they're coming in here laughing at you. I can imagine in the board rooms of New York, of Chile, they're sitting around telling themselves: "Hey, let's go up to British Columbia; there's a bunch of rubes up there."

MR. BARRETT: IT&T.

MR. LAUK: IT&T — they can come in and say: "Have you read section 2 of the Act?" They're going to say: "We can strip the province clean. They say they're going to create jobs. What do you think of that, Harry?" With their cigars and their bamboo canes they come up here with their beads, their wampum and their firewater (laughter) and they take that.... You know, the minister says: "I'm from the bush." Oh boy, are you ever from the bush! I'll tell you that. Army and Navy special minister, I'll tell you. I mean, this guy will sell anything; he doesn't know the value of anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: City slickers.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll tell you: I'm not for city slickers, Mr. Chairman. It's the city slickers that are taking that government for a ride. We went through the whole deal about how this minister got a member of the mining industry to draft section 2. We talked about that. The minister wasn't candid with the House, and we talked about that.

The major point about this section, Mr. Chairman — and this is the whole reason why the opposition is opposing — is the burden and the pressure of taxation placed on the ordinary people of this province when there's absolutely no economic reason to sell out to the major corporations.

You know, it's easy.... And that minister isn't a millionaire — I know he isn't. I wish he was; he's a nice fellow — but he isn't. But he's surrounded by a cabinet of millionaires — the millionaire club. They don't know what it means to have to pay an extra

[ Page 3353 ]

$200 in car insurance, an extra $30 or $40 in a weekend just to get over to Vancouver Island or to the mainland. They don't know what it means They don't know what it means when you have to pay in many cases essential services for a family, an extra 2 per cent in sales tax, or an extra 2 points on income tax — or 1 point or whatever it is.

They don't know what it means to be a really small businessman struggling against impossible odds to keep the few people on his payroll going, and yet be totally ignored by this millionaires club. They're insensitive. This Act — the Mineral Resources Act, and particularly section 2 — is the most cynical section of them all, because they're cynical people, Mr. Chairman, and they don't care.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must draw the member's attention to the fact....

MR. LAUK: You have been very indulgent, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and purposely so, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: And I hope you've recovered from the flu. Have you? Are you feeling better?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I must remind the hon. member that the purposes of committee are not to recanvass subjects perhaps already covered in previous debates, and also the scope of debate must....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt for a moment? I read the Blues of the second-reading debate and, do you know, I don't think one of the points I raised was raised. Isn't that strange?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm reminding the hon. member that committee is not designed to raise subjects already covered in previous debates. Also, the area of coverage in committee is far narrower than it is in second reading. Therefore if you have a subject you want to refer to, perhaps you could refer to it in particular rather than in generalities.

MR. LAUK: I will refer to section 2(1) where it says: "Every operator shall pay a tax of 17.5 per cent of his income derived from the operation of a mine of which he is the operator during the fiscal year. Then it outlines what that 17.5 per cent is of. That's after they pay off everything. You know, they pay off the mortgage and the gas and the electricity and for the shoes and the hats....

AN HON. MEMBER: Campaign contributions.

MR. LAUK: ...campaign contributions, and then at the end after the depletion allowances...

AN HON. MEMBER: They can apply for welfare.

MR. LAUK: ...and so on and the tax holidays and the loopholes and the dropholes and the barn doors are open and so on, they pay their 17.5 per cent. Well, you know that 17.5 per cent of zero.... I wonder how many people in British Columbia would like that as their personal taxation base. Wouldn't it be nice if before you paid any tax you took off your mortgage, your payment for household expenses, your grocery bill, your electricity, your kids' school books, the fees that you have to pay, the gasoline allowance, the automobile expense and your holiday expense? Then you had to pay 17.5 per cent on that. Wouldn't it be nice if the ordinary people of British Columbia, the people who are ignored by the government over there, by the millionaires' club, could come under section 2, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 2 for everybody.

MR. LAUK: Section 2 for everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom from taxes for people.

MR. LAUK: Don't they need an incentive too, Mr. Chairman? We talk about incentives for IT&T and Noranda.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cominco.

MR. LAUK: The boardrooms of Chile and New York and Leaf Rapids, or wherever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Giveaway gang!

MR. LAUK: But what about the incentives for ordinary British Columbians who have staked themselves in this province, who work every day in this province, who produce the wealth of this province? What are their incentives? What are the incentives provided by that minister, by that government — higher insurance rates, higher ferry rates, higher income tax, higher corporate tax for small business, sales tax?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's it. Let them eat cake. We're taking care of the boys in the boardroom though, aren't we, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir, we'll take care of them. The minister, I know, is an honest man. He's not getting anything out of this.

[ Page 3354 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Experience.

MR. LAUK: I bet you don't even own shares in British Columbia. Oh, I pointed that out. That's right. You do own some shares. But surely you can't have that much to gain.

Why the sellout? Why section 2? You know, we're going to vote against section 2, Mr. Chairman. I mean that. We're going to vote against it and we don't have any confidence. We don't have any confidence in that minister. Nothing personal; that man is a decent man. He's a little bit naive and out of the bush, but he's a decent man and I like him personally very much, nothing against him at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: However....

MR. LAUK: However, as a Minister of Mines he's a disaster. He's a failure. He's inept and he's sold us down the river.

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad to see that you've recovered your health, Mr. Chairman, because you have a strenuous job, especially in a debate like this. Because, as you know, in second reading the debate was narrowly confined to one point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) certainly did stay within the confines of section 2 because this is the most scandalous section of a scandalous Act. It's a straight giveaway.

It's like writing a law for the mining companies saying "Anything goes. Do anything you want and we'll help you as long as you don't have to pay taxes." It's the snakes and ladders of taxation legislation. No matter how you shake the dice in this section, Mr. Chairman, the mining companies won't have to pay anything.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we were told that there was no free lunch in British Columbia. We were told that everybody has to pay their way, that everybody has to contribute something to the overall economy. We were told that there would be huge increases in all services that are directly related to people and the costs — ferries, as catalogued by my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre. Everybody was expected to pay their way or increase paying their way except the mining companies.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to know why under this section the mining companies are getting a free lunch. Why do the mining companies have the protection, the succour and the comfort of this government that says not only is it free lunch, it's free breakfast, it's free supper and we throw in the hors-d'oeuvres as well.

Under this section it does away with the Mineral Royalties Act. It says that the mining companies are sacrosanct, that they are blessed, that they don't have to be meek. They just come in here and grab and they can rig up the books. You even suspect them of rigging up the books — but that's another section, Mr. Chairman — when you give them powers under this bill and the Public Inquiries Act to go in and check them. But in actual fact they're getting away without paying a proper share of taxes.

Mr. Chairman, we have been told by the Minister of Mines and by this government that a royalty is a disincentive and that's why this section is in here. Well, there is a difference between a royalty and a basic commodity price. The argument is given to this House and to the people of British Columbia that when the price is depressed on the world market, a royalty is a disincentive to mining companies to compete in the world market for sales of that particular commodity. Under this section they have been given subsidies, because they will be able to write off losses on other tax years. Is that not right, my friend the lawyer from Vancouver Centre?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They can accumulate losses during the times when the international price is down and then pile those losses on the years when the price is up, so no matter what, they are guaranteed a system of avoiding paying tax.

If we take the philosophy of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who says "Give them a shovel," then we have to agree that that is the philosophy: They've given the mining companies a shovel and said: "Go to it; it's free." Welfare for the mining companies — no taxes for the mining companies — but punish the ordinary people.

Mr. Chairman, what was it that the Mineral Royalties Act established? A basic royalty that is now going to be abolished. What was that basic royalty?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if the ordinary people of this province have to pay a 7 per cent sales tax, why don't the mining companies have to pay a 7 per cent commodity charge? Why not? Is there a difference between the ordinary citizens paying for goods or services on 7 per cent and the mining companies not paying that? We are the only jurisdiction that I know of in the world that is going backward in terms of mining royalties. In the Latin America countries, Mr. Chairman, where the state has intervened in terms of their resources, some of them operate on a 50-50 basis. Venezuela for one — 50-50.

We are going to be the happy hunting ground of every fast-buck mining promotion that was ever developed in North America, The Howe Street miners are happier with this bill than any other group — the stock market. More money is lost and manipulated up

[ Page 3355 ]

and down on Howe street than there is in the ground in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Really, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with saying that if there is a 7 per cent commodity for ordinary citizens there should be a 7 per cent commodity charge for a mineral resource, especially a non-renewable mineral resource? 'What's wrong with saying that? If the 7 per cent is the margin between being viable and not viable, isn't it more sensible to leave the product in the ground until the people at least get a more direct benefit?

Mr. Chairman, what about the cost ratios related to public funds under this section that have to be spent? Who pays for the schools, the hospitals, the roads and the whole infrastructure that has to go into a new community when a mine is being opened? When the major investment is from the United States, what is the limitation on a profit escaping to the United States or to Great Britain or to Japan? Under this legislation the people of British Columbia could be net losers even if there was a maximization of employment, because the taxation to support the initial capital cost of schools, hospitals and roads may not be paid off under your new borrowing legislation over the length of the life of the mine.

What's wrong with a government that says, oh, they're going to be businesslike? The life of a mine may be 20 years, but the borrowings for schools and hospitals and roads under your new legislation to put the people in debt may go over 30 or 40 years. It means that the taxpayers of this province end up paying, on high-cost loan money for capital expenses to allow the mine to develop, what may be two or three times more the value of the mining that actually took place.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole town profits.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of record that there is no place in the world where once you dig the ore out more grows in the empty hole.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): The minister says it does.

MR. BARRETT: I know. He was trying to tell us the other day that the more you dig up, the more you find, because it gives you an incentive to look up for the reserves. Now 300 years ago there were heresay cases on this basis of logic, but now it has come about in Social Credit. (Laughter.) This is the philosophy under this section: invite them to dig a hole, take out the ore and by that process more ore will grow in the fertilized ground.

AN HON. MEMBER: A plus B.

MR. BARRETT: A plus B.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You fertilized it well.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member....

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): The Major Douglas theory.

MR. BARRETT: I keep on forgetting that fellow's name. It doesn't really matter; he's only one of those one-timers anyway. Mr. Chairman....

MR. KING: He's from Esquimalt.

MR. BARRETT: Esquimalt — the member for Esquimalt, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he's a two-timer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, under this section what is really happening is that the mining industry of British Columbia is being given a free ride, is being given welfare. They are being told they don't have to pay a basic commodity tax while every citizen in this province is told they must pay a 7 per cent sales tax. It's irresponsible. As the member for Vancouver said, they are laughing in the boardrooms. It's hicksville; Hicksville — British Columbia!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, it's not a question of him. I don't blame this minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. It's unfair to blame this minister; it was a commitment to the mining industry two years ago by Social Credit when they wanted to claw their way back into power. They were willing to say anything to anybody, and promise anything to industry. This is the payoff bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay-off-Bill Bennett.

MR. BARRETT: It's why ordinary people of British Columbia have had to pay more money, because they've been told there's no free lunch, the mining industry has been given a feast, free and at the taxpayers' expense. Come in and get it, gang! Any way you want it, any way you add it up, at the end it's 17.5 per cent off the bottom, not the top.

Mr. Chairman, if you believe that there was incentive to produce because of this legislation — and that's what we were told; it's incentive to produce — if you believe it's incentive to put in more effort and more capital, if you really believe that, then, as the member for Vancouver Centre said, let every citizen of British Columbia have the same opportunity to

[ Page 3356 ]

produce, the same opportunity for incentive to get more involved, the same opportunity for incentive to spend more time on the job, and let them have the same accounting system so they don't have to pay income tax, sales tax, high ferry charges and anything else that you have soaked the people with.

The "millionaires club" is appropriate. The gold-mine gang. All kinds of labels can be put in that coalition group over there, but it is part and parcel of the 105-year history of this province, which was only interrupted for three and a half years, wherein the mining industry got its own way from any government, anytime in British Columbia — except for those three and a half years. They came to the Liberals; they came to the Conservatives; they came to coalition; they came to Social Credit, and they got legislation in their favour.

Mr. Chairman, this section is abominable! It is a giveaway; it is scandalous and it makes a mockery of every penny that you're wringing out of the people of this province by saying that there's no free lunch when you're giving the mining industry everything they want.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the member for Vancouver Centre is incorrect in one thing: no one single person wrote this Act. This is an accumulation of orders from the mining industry; that's what it is. The mining industry said: "We'll spend $100,000 taking out ads." The mining industry paid for demonstrators to come on the lawns to this Legislature against Bill 31.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, they did. The mining companies paid demonstrators to get on the plane, bought them a free lunch...there were even a couple of drunks out there on the lawn....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Socialists.

MR. BARRETT: No, sir, my friend. They admitted to the newspaper that they had been paid by the mining industry to come here and demonstrate against this government. They all had a day off at the expense of the mining companies, and the mining companies are being paid back today.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you pay them to say that?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. KING: Gold mines in the sky.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there's no gold mine in the sky; the gold mine has arrived. Have you heard that expression, "I'm waiting for the day my ship comes in"? Well, that's the song they're singing in Vancouver today, in New York and in London, in the mining company offices — "Our ship has come in, gang, under section 2."

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's our own happy little minister who says to the ordinary people, who are kind of dumb because they have an education system in this province that says you must go to school to age 16, but never discuss resources.... Not like Latin America, not like the Arab states, not like other jurisdictions where proper taxation is being made, but here on the raw frontier the giveaway gang says to the mining industry: "Every operator shall pay a tax of 17.5 per cent of his income derived from the operation of mines in which he is the operator during the fiscal year."

AN HON. MEMBER: After.

MR. BARRETT: After they deduct every single expense, including campaign funds.

MR. KING: Slush funds to the coalition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the only way this can be described is as a sellout. How in the world can you face people on the street and say, under this section, that you've got to pay everything for everything you get in the province, but the mining companies don't? How in the world can you face a young couple who are trying to save enough money to buy a home and say: "There's no free lunch for you, but we'll allow mansions for the mining companies."? How do you tell the senior citizens who got the idea they were getting a free ride on the ferries if they carried the bus on that they too have to pay for the mining companies under this section?

Mr. Chairman, there are some in this House who are more appropriate to and more aware of the quoting of the Bible than I. I don't want to name any names. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm very familiar with the long warnings given in the Bible and I leave it to the Chairman of this House to tell the government the particular section in Ecclesiastics that warns....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ecclesiastics?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and some sections of the Old Testament that some of us are more familiar with than others, Mr. Chairman (laughter) — some sections of the Old Testament that, even to this day, some of us are more familiar with than the others — that warn of those in power governing with an uneven hand, oppressing the poor, unfair distribution of

[ Page 3357 ]

responsibility and wealth, because it will come to haunt you. I will not be the first to remind you of your sin because, Mr. Chairman, others in this province know today that this is a sellout bill.

The God-given resources of the people of this province are being handed over, holus-bolus, to the mining companies and they're saying: "Gang, go to it. Don't pay a dime. Don't even smile. We hope you buy a ticket on the way through. Spend the money anywhere you want in the world. Make a buck in British Columbia while the people suffer." And all on the basis of some kind of myth that we're going to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hallelujah!

MR. BARRETT: Nonsense! Nonsense, Mr. Chairman. It's a complete sellout by the millionaires club who have no understanding of what they've done to the ordinary people.

MR. LAUK: Order! The hon. member is not directing his remarks to the section that.... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On section 2 as amended, please.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'll attempt to stay as close on target as the other speakers in this debate. I would have been more impressed by the two previous speakers had we been dealing with an industry that was making a lot of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Let's hear about IT&T and Noranda.

MR. GIBSON: I also would have been more impressed had we been speaking about an industry with rising employment, but the fact of the matter...

MR. BARRETT: Cominco, Fording....

MR. GIBSON: ...is that the rate. of return on the copper companies last year was 2 per cent on invested capital, and only when you added in the coal companies — which the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) is talking about — did it come up to about 10 per cent...

AN HON. MEMBER: Flim-flam.

MR. GIBSON: ...and that's a total! That's after those coal company profits....

MR. LEA: Do you believe that?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I believe it, Mr. Member. You'd believe it too. You'd believe it too, if you did some research.

MR. LAUK: You're a millionaire.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there can be....

MR. LAUK: Liberal jolly numbers game. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: If other members wish to make a speech, then let them stand in their places and address the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: There can be no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that employment is down in the mining industry — seriously down in the mining industry — from the point where it was three years ago. In the operating mines it's about the same. But anybody who thinks that is the future of the mining industry, or even the present of the mining industry, doesn't understand that business. It's the exploration field that's the future of the mining industry, and employment in the exploration field went down to about one-quarter of what it used to be. It went down by thousands of people during the term of that former government in office and during the term of mineral royalties legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing with figures.

MR. GIBSON: I wouldn't be saying these kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, except for the kind of nonsense that's been talked here for the last half hour.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: This new rate of taxation, Mr. Chairman, while it's too low in some bonanza times and some bonanza mines, it is too high in ordinary times and for ordinary mines.

MR. LAUK: Oh, balderdash!

MR. GIBSON: Here's the total tax take: 36 per cent federal tax abated by 25 per cent on the resource grant; total federal tax, 27 per cent of the profit. Provincial corporation tax, 15 per cent; we're now at 42 per cent.

[ Page 3358 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Of what?

MR. GIBSON: Add in the tax under section 2 of 17.5 per cent and you're up to 59.5 per cent. Abate the amount for the resource processing allowance, which is allowed under a later section, and you're back down to 56.75 per cent once you have used up your capital cost allowance, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor. Hon. Member, would you please address the Chair and not be so easily detracted by other members in the House?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I get too emotional when I'm worried about the jobs that are being lost in the mining industry ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: ...because of the previous legislation we had.

MR. LAUK: I like this too much to listen to this, Mr. Chairman. I've got to go out.

MR. GIBSON: Now, Gary, I listened to you. I didn't even chuckle very much. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, there's an obvious first principle. The thing you tax is profits. Royalties is the wrong way to tax in the mining industry.

MR. BARRETT: After write-offs they don't make any profits.

MR. GIBSON: The speakers for the New Democratic Party have said that the profits would all be gone by the time the tax collector gets there. Well, then, hire better tax collectors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. GIBSON: These arguments are arguments against any kind of corporation tax at all. I never heard the New Democratic Party say they're against the corporation tax.

MR. BARRETT: The way it's structured now we are.

MR. GIBSON: You didn't change it.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I pleaded with the former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) for two years in this chamber: "Will you set up our own provincial corporation tax system so that you can plug any of those loopholes you see?" He never did it. I don't know why not.

But I'll tell you, I'm not too worried about those flinty-eyed corporate tax collectors. They come around and they get their pound of flesh pretty well. But you know where the misconception comes in all of this? Corporations don't pay taxes; people pay taxes. Corporations aren't people. They're not flesh and blood. The only people that the money comes out of are the customers in the form of higher prices or the employees in the form of lower take-home pay or the owners in the form of a lower return on their investment. Those are the only people that the money can come out of.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would like to remind the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea): if the member wishes to make a speech, then let him stand in his place and address the Chair and make is speech in an orderly fashion.

MR. GIBSON: Corporations are legal fictions, Mr. Chairman, they are convenient tax collectors. That's all they are. The important thing in looking at the mineral resource in this province is how we best administer it for the public interest; and the public interest relates not just to the return that we get out of the ownership of that resource. It relates to jobs in this province and it relates to taxation from those jobs and sales tax from those jobs and all of the secondary downstream benefits that come out of that employment.

Now I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) stand up here and say: "If 7 per cent is the difference between being a viable mine and a not viable mine, isn't it better to leave it in the ground until the people can get something out of it?" That's a more or less written-down quote. Does he know the unemployment rate in this province, Mr. Chairman? Is it better to leave that ore in the ground and leave those people unemployed?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense!

MR. GIBSON: Because that's the other side of the question. Any time you render something uneconomic by putting a flat-rate royalty on it, then you render those jobs not there too.

[ Page 3359 ]

MR. BARRETT: What about the capital costs, the schools, the roads, the infrastructure costs? We'll be more in debt in the long run.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: That's what I wrote down, Mr. Chairman, the question of the capital costs of infrastructure, schools, and roads and that kind of thing. Obviously that kind of social infrastructure cost should not be incurred unless the Crown can see in the first place that it's going to do more good for the people than not doing it at all. That's obvious. That's an obvious equation.

MR. BARRETT: They're eliminating the production leases. They can go ahead and do anything they want. Don't you read the legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please! Order, please! Let me also remind the Leader of the Opposition that we listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition while he made his speech. Perhaps he could afford the same courtesy to the member who now has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind. I appreciate that I am provoking the Leader of the Opposition mightily and I'm sorry about that. But on this particular issue of mineral taxation, we have a slight disagreement and I don't know any way of avoiding it.

Now another thing the Leader of the Opposition said is: "Why not pay 7 per cent on this commodity that you take out of the ground, because you pay it on everything else?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. GIBSON: Because, Mr. Chairman, that's not the best way to get the most out of this resource. Did the previous government back in the days when there was 5 per cent sales tax charge 5 per cent on trees? No. Did they charge 5 per cent on carrots? No. Did they charge 5 per cent on fish? No. That's a funny thing.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): We charged stumpage, my friend.

MR. GIBSON: Stumpage is not a royalty. Stumpage is a profit-variable levy.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No. No, this is a flat-rate royalty. This is not a profit-variable levy. Stumpage, as a matter of fact, is the theoretically ideal way of taxing mineral deposits because, first of all, you allow the company's rate of return on ordinary investment in ordinary times and then you say when there's an extraordinary time that we take a very large chunk. That's exactly what stumpage is. The former Minister of Finance knows that. That's a good way of extracting economic rents.

MR. BARRETT: Why does it have to be the only outside millionaire that's giving this argument?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: This is attack.

AN HON. MEMBER: Count your own.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the 7 per cent flat rate, or 5 per cent, or whatever you might call it, is not the best way of doing it.

Let me try and illustrate this. Let's say with trees...trees are easier to visualize. Let's say there's a stand of trees...

AN HON. MEMBER: Renewable.

MR. GIBSON: Let's say there's a stand of.... It's the same thing. It's a stand of trees, see, and they're all mixed up and there's 1,000 trees there and there's 100 trees that are worth $ 1.10 and 100 worth $ 1.20 and so on up to $2. Now it costs you $1.05 per tree to log these trees and the logger comes along and he takes out all the trees because he makes a profit on every one of them. Now all of a sudden you put a royalty on these trees, a flat rate royalty, not a profit tax but a flat rate royalty — 10 cents a tree it's going to cost to take them out, All of a sudden the logger isn't going to take out those $1.10 trees anymore, is he? Because his basic costs are $1.05 plus 10 cents. So it's $1.15 to take out a tree.

MR. BARRETT: Trees are renewable; once cut, they grow again.

MR. GIBSON: Well I'm just trying to help you visualize, Dave.

MR. CHAIRMAN:' Order, please! Hon. Members, let's keep order in debate in this House. I remind the Leader of the Opposition for the second time....

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The rules do not provide right or wrong. They only provide for orderly debate, Hon. Member, and I remind you now for the third time, please do not interrupt the member who has the

[ Page 3360 ]

floor. Would the member for North Vancouver-Capilano please continue?

MR. GIBSON: That was going quite well, I think. It doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to explain that by putting on that flat-rate royalty in that particular situation of a graduated fall-off in the value of the resource, in that case you lost 10 per cent of the production, because it's not worth taking out after you put that royalty on. So that's what a royalty does and that's why a profit tax is the right way to do it.

Now the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) seemed to be recommending in his talk some kind of a turnover tax or a value-added tax, and you could look at that, too, if you wanted.

But, again, he seemed to be arguing against corporation taxes, because he seemed to be saying that there's no way you can collect them. Well, then, how is it, Mr. Chairman, that billions of dollars worth of corporation taxes are paid every year in this country?

MR. LEA: It's going down every year.

MR. GIBSON: It's because, in fact, corporation taxes are collected. This is a levy on what is left after expenses are paid. Let me remind you, those expenses that are paid, they are payments, first of all, to the people who work in the mines or the exploration areas. Secondly, they are payments to people who are suppliers to those companies, generally speaking B.C. operations. That's where most of those payments go. They all pay taxes, too. So don't worry about that money escaping taxes. The former Minister of Finance (Mr. Barrett) knows how things go round and round in our economy, because he used to take a little cutoff every time it went around and got a little more sales tax

AN HON. MEMBER: He wanted the whole thing.

MR. GIBSON: He knows how it goes around.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the charge made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that this proposal would accelerate high-grading is not correct, because the way a mine will go after its deposit, in any event, is one that maximizes cash flow in the earlier years. This is only natural. This is a good thing for our society. You want to maximize the rate of return on your capital as long as you're not following a wasteful mining pattern. The presence of a royalty, in fact, does encourage high-grading because of the explanation I made, getting back to the analogy about the trees. It raises your cut-off grade and therefore causes you to leave a certain amount of ore in the ground.

Mr. Chairman, the effective rate of this particular section will vary over the life of the mine. It will be a very minimum rate during the years when some capital cost allowance is available, and that doesn't bother me at all because mining is a risky business. The faster that capital can be recovered in a mining operation, the faster it can be ploughed into some other mining operation in this province or in this country. Then once the capital is recovered, the taxation rate goes up very quickly to the full level of something in excess of 56 per cent.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, that's more than the average manufacturing outfit. Generally speaking, there is a higher risk on the mining side than the manufacturing side. I am a little bit disappointed that the minister put the rate that high. Nevertheless I will support this particular section. But I ask him for future years to pursue that theoretical way of more sensitively capturing the economic rent, which is to say a look at the stumpage approach in the mining field. It's not a problem that is going to come up in the next year or two gauging by the kinds of prices that we have in most of our metals at least. It's even unlikely in the coal field after the last couple of years we've had which were years of extraordinary profits. But now the capital costs are up so high that the profits aren't going to be extraordinary there either,

My opinion is that the elimination of the flat-rate royalty is going to be of inestimable value to the mining industry in this province. The elimination of the super-royalty which is done under a different section is really not a matter of consequence, because once you have a basic tax rate of over 56 per cent, you've done as well as the super-royalty in any case. The return to the public treasury is going to be about as good as it would have been under the old system in terms of direct returns, and it's going to be much better in terms of jobs, in terms of income tax paid, in terms of sales tax paid, municipal tax paid and all the direct and indirect contributions to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, we have an unemployment rate in this province of almost 10 per cent. Our unemployment rate in the month of May was higher than in any May since 1954 and I believe any May since the great Depression, although I haven't checked the 10 years before that specifically. We are in a very serious position in this province. We need to do the things that are necessary to create the jobs. They have to be our first concern, and if a change in our taxation system, back to what is common sense in any case, can help to do that, then I say amen.

I will say the major obstacle standing now in the face of revitalization of employment in the mining industry in British Columbia is the nonsensical, dogmatic, continuing, stupid approach of the New Democratic Party which is continuing to terrify

[ Page 3361 ]

people in the mining industry in this province and I fear will do so for years to come. I beg them, as I begged them before their last convention, to take it up again at your next convention, hon. members. Look at it seriously and, hopefully, come to some kind of accommodation between your dogma and the facts of life in terms of how we create employment and productivity for our province. That has to be the basic concern of all of us and I believe that this bill is a step forward in that direction.

MR. KING: I just want to make a few fairly brief comments about this bill. I think it's a bill that points out the basic differences between our party and all of those others in the Legislature. Perhaps it points up the reason that members of all the other parties find it so comfortable and convenient to cross party lines and to toddle back and forth from one party to the next with no compunction and with no problem in terms of rationalizing their principles, because the government of the day, which proposed this bill and this particular section, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, are all in accord.

Where we differ and where we depart in terms of approach to royalties, in terms of approach to the wise utilization of resources in this province, is that we believe basically that if the viability of the mining industry is so narrow that it requires that the commodity, the resource, be virtually given away, then it's not in the public interest to develop that resource now.

We believe that there's another question to be asked, aside from the profitability to the company which is involved in the development. As I stated on another occasion, we do not object in any way to a reasonable profit margin for those industries. But we say they are developing our resource, a resource which belongs to all of the people of the province, and surely the public who own the resource are entitled to a fair degree of profitability also, a fair return on a resource that is not replaceable.

Where we depart is clearly spelled out by the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) comments, when he directed his whole attention to the imposition of a tax which guarantees that company, that corporation, an adequate level — of profitability by his criteria. We believe that that is not the only consideration. The second consideration should be — or perhaps the first consideration should be — whether or not it is profitable for the people at this time to develop and exploit that irreplaceable resource.

We suggest that when we have to cut the level of return to the people of the province to the degree that this bill and this section particularly trims that return, then we believe the benefit to the public is negligible.

The discussion about employment opportunity generated through mining activity is a bit of a red herring in this day and age. The employment opportunity from mining is very negligible and very low in British Columbia, and it's being reduced constantly by new technology which allows industry to strip and to mine with modern, sophisticated machinery that used to require manpower but no longer does.

Studies that have been done show an ever-decreasing employment factor in the mining industry in the province of British Columbia. Therefore it becomes more and more essential that if we are going to allow our resources to be exploited, then there has to be good and reasonable return to the public treasury to assist in the financing of all the social programmes government has an obligation to provide and extend to the people of the province.

I just wanted to emphasize that yes, this is the difference between our approach and that of the other parties in this House, in this province, and in this nation. We are all essentially the same anyway, Mr. Chairman. We find the Conservatives departing to join the ranks of the Social Credit coalition. We find three former Liberals making the same journey. I think at the outset of this session, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) said the road to Damascus lies through this Legislature. I'm beginning to think, by looking at the Liberals standing in the cabinet, that the road to Damascus lies through the Liberal Party rather than just through the Legislature, because they've done very well in that new coalition group.

Mr. Chairman, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) presented the case very well. We think it's inequitable, We think it's unfair. We think that it's absolutely inadequate that we should grant these special concessions to the mining industry which allows them the many opportunities that are available to such corporations to write off, through deflation allowance, through depreciation, through various other cost factors, the real net profit which they enjoy at the end of the year, and simply tax them on the basis of that net profit.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

No other individual in this province — and certainly the manufacturing sector does not — enjoys that kind of advantage. They must, in the first place, buy their commodity before they go into production. They must buy their commodity and they must exist on the margin of profit which lies between the cost of purchasing the commodity and the cost of refining it and retailing it. What we are doing is extending to the mining industry virtually free resources and taxing them on a net profit, which is in no way realistic in terms of a measurement of their income from the development.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I

[ Page 3362 ]

recognize and I certainly say "vive la difference" between the Liberal approach and the coalition approach. We understand clearly what the issue is. We do not, under any circumstances, support this giveaway to the mining industry. It once again clearly identifies on philosophical grounds the basic, fundamental difference which exists between the government of today and the official opposition in this House.

Nothing is more fundamental to the economic and social objectives of this province than wise management of our resources. Mr. Chairman, despite the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) impatience to get this gift to the mining industry through, I suggest that this is something that cannot be overemphasized, because wise resource management lies at the very heart of the difference in philosophy between our party and the government. Certainly it's one that should be understood, and I intend to make it understood, by all the people of this province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, carrying on with second reading of section 2 — it seems like second reading. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) spoke of all the mines that were opened up during the term of the NDP government. I know of none. Gibraltar Mines opened during that period, because they had committed to construction and were almost ready for production when the government changed. There may have been the odd very small short-term operation that came and went during that period. In spite of the fact that during the time that that government took over there were in the order of 20 proven ore bodies in this province, none of those mines committed to production.

MR. KING: So what?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: None of the mines that have been committed to production in the last 15 years in British Columbia, which is the major part of our mining industry today would have, or could have, gone into production under the terms of the royalty legislation brought down by that government.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) remarks about "profits escaping the province." This is one of the big complaints that people in the mining industry have about this legislation, because we have made it impossible for this to happen. We're taxing each mine separately so that they cannot pool their incomes with other areas. We are preventing them from selling their concentrates to associated companies at less-than-arm's-length deals. We can deem prices so that the province cannot be escaped in that manner.

The member also mentioned the fact that Bethlehem Copper...all they had to do to find their mine was stake the claim. That member, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, told me that soon after he became the Minister of Mines and he took a five-day course in mining at the board-room level and thereafter knew all about the mining industry. A brilliant man indeed! Five days and he knows all about the mining industry. I wonder if that man's ever worn a hardhat.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was raised in the bush. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the mining industry has been paying a basic royalty of 5 per cent. We have been working in the last year to a copper price in the order of 60 cents a pound. It costs the mining industry about 55 cents a pound these days to produce copper. A 5 per cent royalty on 60 cents amounts to 30 or 40 per cent of the profit margin which they have to work on. That is just the beginning, They must also pay federal tax on that amount. They must pay provincial mining taxes and provincial corporate taxes.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned at the second reading at which the members opposite did not attend, although they were cordially invited, that a study was made of 70 different real mines in Canada. A comparison was made — the net revenue to government over the life of these mines under profit-based tax and under a royalty tax system such as we had in British Columbia, and at varying rates of taxation. It was proven that the maximum return to the people for their resource is gained by a profit-based tax. More of the resource is used and the resource lasts longer because ore is not converted to waste by a royalty.

Mr. Chairman, many other points were raised here by the new member for Vancouver East, and I know that the people cannot possibly believe the nonsensical way of reasoning that they have brought forward here today because it just does not make sense. It's been especially proven over the last three years in British Columbia that the resource of the people of B.C. will not be developed and will benefit no one if it stays in the ground,

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

[ Page 3363 ]

NAYS — 14

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

On section 3.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 3 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the seven amendments to section 5 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment to section 21 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 53 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Mineral Resources Tax Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 57, Mineral Resources Tax Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 12

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

[ Page 3364 ]

the House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, you may have thought you fooled us, but you didn't put a hat over your left breast when you passed that bill. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is legal.

MR. LEA: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know left from right.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 30.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 36 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Well done, Tom. Good speech.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Mineral Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 28.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE
INCOME FOR NEED ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm being obstructed by the first member for Vancouver Centre. I just want to make a couple of brief comments. One of them relates to the fact — and I think it should go into the record — that second reading on this bill was completed at midnight. The opposition were not here, but I was interested in the....

MR. COCKE: Behind closed doors.

MR. LEVI: Yes, behind closed doors. I was interested that only one member of the government got up to speak on it. He apparently had some good things to say about the previous government. He also had something to say about the $100 million overrun. I would like to say now that the $100 million overrun amounted to putting money into people's pockets. We cannot be accused of putting our hands into the taxpayers' pockets to take out $147 million of unnecessary money.

In respect to the bill itself, this was to be — as I understood when it was introduced, Mr. Speaker — the shining jewel in the crown of social policy for the government, and it's coming very much at the end. It should have been brought on a lot earlier so we would have been able to have a good go at this thing, because there are some aspects of this bill which, from the point of view of the public, become somewhat misleading. We're faced with a piece of legislation which is not passed and yet we're faced with a leaflet which is being put out by the department — and it seems to be full of inaccuracies — giving out information to the public which has no basis in fact. I would quote, Mr. Chairman, from the one section that says "60 to 64." This is in the leaflet that's being put out by the minister.

"Similar benefits to those 65 years and over are also available on application." But this is not the case; this is not the case at all. It's not the case that benefits for 55s to 59s are going to be the same as those 65 and over.

Mr. Chairman, the minister keeps insisting that somehow the opposition is creating a lot of trouble out there by telling the people the truth. Well, I would hope that when we get to other sections in this bill that the minister will be able to tell us very specifically what people are going to get.

We asked during second reading: are there going to be any regulations made available? They haven't been brought down. There's been ample time to bring down regulations. After all, the only regulations you have to bring down are to set the levels of pay, because at the moment there is a difference in the levels of pay; it's quite specific. We do not have the regulations that, presumably, once the House has adjourned until the fall session, will come down fairly quickly.

Mr. Chairman, it's GAIN legislation, but the way it's set up it goes all the way back to 1972 on an asset-tested programme. And it's really "Gainsburger" legislation; it's not GAIN legislation. You are not going to keep people off a programme they have every entitlement to be on if you were to follow the Mincome programme, which you're not doing. You

[ Page 3365 ]

have instituted an asset test, and by instituting an asset test you will leave out, under the 55 to 59 age group, approximately 15,000 people who should qualify for it if, as you have said, it's the same as Mincome.

If it was the same as Mincome, we have in the province almost 20,000 people who are making less money than the people who are on Mincome. Yet the minister has said that only 5,000 people are going to get on it. Of course, only 5,000 people will get on because there will be an asset test. They will ask people to spend all of their assets down to the qualifying asset level and then they can qualify. That was not the style of Mincome. We looked at people's incomes; we looked at what kind of income they derived from what assets they had, and they came on if they qualified.

We did not expect that people would penurize themselves down to the last nickel before they were qualified. And this is what this legislation does, because it's based very clearly on the concept that every programme that government is going to introduce is going to be cost-shareable or else. Well, of course, if it's cost-shareable we're back to 1972.

There's a real irony, Mr. Chairman, that we just finished Bill 57, which was a giveaway bill. Well, I think this one can be characterized as a take-away bill because fewer people in the future are going to qualify for this programme, and this is the great tragedy because the previous government set the standards for income maintenance for senior citizens in this country — not the previous Social Credit government, as in the kind of garbage the party like to trot out, but the previous government. The previous government led the way in terms of getting other provinces to bring in Mincome-type legislation, but they still did not go the complete income-test level.

One has to be committed, in terms of the senior citizens in this province, that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to have to carry the load for income support for people over the age of 65, or over the age of 60, or over the age of 55. It's on the backs of the taxpayers of this province if we can not get the federal government to be involved in the sharing. It would be nice if they would, but they are not prepared to do that. But that does not take away from the need that people over the age of 60, or over the age of 65, and 55 to 59, have in terms of income support. If they're no longer part of the work force they simply have to have that kind of assistance.

If you're going to say that if we can't cost-share the programme they won't get that kind of assistance, then you've taken this province back four years into the Dark Ages. You've taken us back anyway because you've rewritten history; you've taken away Mincome and you're going to call it GAIN.

Mr. Chairman, specifically in the first section, which deals with the kind of income assistance that will be available to the sick and the elderly, perhaps the minister will explain to us very carefully what as income assistance has he got in mind for people over the age of 55, over the age of 60 and over the age of 65. Because by this bill, certainly the total impact of what's going to happen by this legislation is that all people in this province, whether they are on what used to be the Mincome programme or the handicapped programme or the social assistance programme, are now going to become welfare recipients. That's simply what is going to happen; they're going to become welfare recipients.

I'm going to ask the minister, under this section, to tell us what levels of income people who are the sick and who are the elderly can expect in terms of the programme if the legislation is passed. Is each category of person going to get the same money, or are the people over 65 going to get a different amount, the 60 to 64 get a different amount, the 55 to 59 a different amount?

What levels, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are people going to get in terms of this legislation?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I think I should briefly reply to the questions raised by the member. The member commenced his comments by saying that the $100 million overrun which has been mentioned so often in the Legislature and elsewhere was putting money in people's pockets. Certainly I don't argue with this in part. But you can't, as a government, put money in people's pockets without taking it out of someone else's pocket first. We don't have a money tree. We can't print it or manufacture it. It must come from somewhere.

We too this year certainly have shown that we care for people by introducing the GAIN legislation and also by backing it up with additional funds — the largest budget ever in the area of Human Resources. We're telling the people that certainly this money comes from you but it'll be going back to areas of need. What concerns me a little — and I'm sure the hon. member won't take offence if I point it out to him — is that each and every time he stands up — and he has a good many times, and so he should — speaking to matters of human resources he begins by Mincome, Mincome 60 to 64. That's all that's ever mentioned.

I'm sure, Mr. Member, if you were to go back over the records you'd see that every and each of your references has started out this way and has centred around this group of people. I think there are an equal number of people in that age category that take exception to the fact that you appear to single them out as the only and one category of people in need.

Mr. Member, I see a far greater need beyond that

[ Page 3366 ]

one single age category. I recognize there's a need in that age category but it isn't limited. It doesn't stop there. When I go back over the last two years and see that people in need, single-parent families, individuals in families, haven't seen any increase at all — no increase in their welfare payments, in their benefits.... Yet repeatedly we keep hearing about Mincome, Mincome, 60 to 64, and we tend to put aside these other areas. I say that's wrong. I'm sure that the people age 60 to 64 will agree with that.

There are other people in need, and we must give fair consideration to all those people. As long as I'm minister I intend to give fair consideration to each and every category, to speak out not only for that one category, but all the categories. That's what we intend to do in this legislation.

When you say that an asset test shouldn't be necessary and the people of British Columbia should be prepared to bear the burden on their backs in providing for those between the ages of 60 to 64 that's fine, except I think it should be recognized also that people are prepared to bear only so much and can afford to bear only so much. There comes a time when the back will hold no more. I think we must recognize that, and having recognized that we should then say: "How much do we have, how much can the people pay and where do we provide? Do we see and recognize all the needs and do we then make the moneys available in those areas of need?"

If in doing this we can devise a way by which we can get back the tax dollars that we have, in bearing the burden, paid to Ottawa, I say all the better. If we can get back millions of dollars from Ottawa to help people in need in British Columbia, so we should. I'm sure the average British Columbian doesn't mind paying, as you say, for those between the age of 60 to 64, 65. On the other hand I'm sure these same British Columbians are saying: "Look, there are as many people in that age category that have such assets that they may somehow be able to provide for themselves far better than that single-parent family down the street where the woman must stay home with three kiddies because her husband took off some place and she's having to provide for herself."

When we consider need let's look at all need and let's deal with all people fairly and be totally honest and above board and not use one particular age category politically time and time again.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I presume that under section 1 we have a fair amount of latitude to discuss the whole ramifications of this bill, but I don't intend to do that, you'll be relieved to hear. I very much welcome the minister's comments in response to the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) because this is a very new and untested piece of legislation that depends a great deal on regulations. There are numerous sections of the bill which make it very plain that until we have the regulations we will not be in a position fairly to judge whether the minister's goal as he just stated it a moment ago is being fulfilled. I couldn't agree more with him that it is a question of trying to provide fair and reasonable assistance to all categories in our society.

Not too long ago the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) went even further and pointed out that there are so many types of need which are met through different forms of legislation, whether it's medicare or workers' compensation or various other kinds of coverage and, as the minister pointed out, sooner or later the money to provide these benefits comes out of tax revenue raised by one means or another, and that the key in a rapidly changing society is to have flexible programmes with varying techniques which not only take cognizance of the changing situations that apply to families and parents and parentless children and so on but also, as this bill does, relate some of the benefits to consumer price indices and such other techniques to relate payments to the changing value of the dollar.

I think it has been very clearly pointed out in this session of the Legislature that the whole federal-provincial situation of fund-sharing is at a very sensitive stage, and that the next five-year period from 1977 to 1982 is to be negotiated with the federal government, not only in relation to the Canada Assistance Plan but also in relation to medicare and hospital costs and post-secondary education and so on.

My feeling on this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that it does appear to offer the flexibility which I think is all-essential. I am very much reassured in the course of this session and by the minister's comments today that he does, indeed, set out, at least in the introduction of this bill, by trying to hit a balance between providing need where it is obviously demonstrated that need exists but, at the same time, remain aware of the fact that the needs of society change and the needs of families change and also that the responsibility of the government always is to ensure that revenue, which has to be raised from the taxpayer in the first place, is spent in a responsible and balanced manner and responsibly disbursed to recipients.

I hope that by the fall session the minister will, perhaps, be able to report back with any amendments that do seem to be appropriate in the light of the ineffectiveness or lack of success of some of the sections of the bill. It is a pity, in my view, that so much has to be left to regulation. I am told by my advisers that this isn't very different from what the practice has been in previous governments, but it makes it very difficult to debate a bill section by section where the word "regulation" is mentioned in almost every section.

[ Page 3367 ]

With these reservations I feel that the responsible thing to do is give the minister and his department a chance to implement this legislation. If the kind of overall goal that he's announced this afternoon is even met I would say 80 per cent of the way, then we will certainly continue to support this legislation.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I find it very difficult to discuss this bill section by section for some of the reasons that have been outlined before. It is a very vague piece of legislation. We don't really know where it's going. I hoped when the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) asked him specific questions about amounts and how it was really going to function that we might have had an answer from the minister. Instead, we had a very stirring speech with some very fine philosophy but, really, no answers to the specifics that are involved here.

Because of this, while the minister is indicating some very fine ideals, we can only judge according to what has been happening in the past month or so. While the regulations are not set out and while the bill is not yet an Act, we have had some changes in the approach that is being taken to things like Mincome. I would point out the asset test which is in fact now being applied.

It is a difference in attitude. It's a change in approach. It is now, as it says, for need, and that need is a much narrower terminology because it relates to the assets you may have, regardless of whether or not there is any return you are gaining from those. Before it was simply on a statement of income. Maybe it was more on an ideology of trust that people would declare the amount of income they had. I said this to the minister before and I repeat it: I think that in 99 cases out of 100 you get a truthful answer.

I have had people in my office very concerned because maybe now there has been a change. They have heard there's been a change and maybe they shouldn't cash their cheques. All I can do is send them to the local worker and tell them to ask the local worker what those regulations are now. We just don't know, Mr. Minister. When it is as wide open as this is, it is very difficult to discuss it clause by clause and section by section.

The people who are in receipt of various kinds of allowances are concerned about forthcoming changes. They are concerned about the position they are going to be in. They are concerned about what they can do so that they will still qualify. This is making people look for loopholes almost.

You know, this is the thing that is coming across my desk, Mr. Minister, and this concerns me because I don't like to see this. I wish that you could indicate to us, for example, if a wife is 55 and if her husband is 65, what is she entitled to if she has no income, if her husband is 65 and in receipt of some form of guaranteed annual income supplement or some form of provincial assistance but perhaps has some assets or some income that reduces that by a certain amount. Perhaps he doesn't. Perhaps the wife has a few dollars in the bank with a little bit of interest.

This is the thing that people are asking me, Mr. Minister. This is the thing that we don't know, and until these regulations are drafted, and until there is something set up, it is very difficult to have an intelligent debate about this bill, Mr. Minister. If you have any answers, I, for one, would certainly appreciate having this kind of information now in third reading.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would certainly like to add my remarks to those made by the other members while trying to debate the bill without the regulations.

I ask the minister specifically: where are these regulations going to be ready? Is anyone working on the regulations now? The bill was brought down a number of weeks ago and there certainly has been ample time. There's been more than six months that you've been the minister. I think it has been six or seven months. Surely that's long enough to work out....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Six months and nine days.

MS. BROWN: Six months and nine days, the Minister of Housing tells me. Surely that's long enough to have worked out the regulations and given us some indication as to just what kind of rates you are talking about.

You know, I think it's a very interesting thing for the minister to stand up and speak about the improvement in rates and the increases that are going to be given to single-parent families and other groups, but without actually using any figures.

By the time the regulations come down, this House will have adjourned or prorogued or whatever, and it will be too late for us as an opposition to make our position known on those rates, Mr. Minister. So if you have any figures I think this would be as good a time as any for you to share them with us.

What I want to say specifically about the bill under this section 1 has to do with the whole business of means testing. As long as the bill demands that what you get in terms of your payment under this legislation is tied to your filling out a form — and I have one of the means test forms that is presently being used by your department — then we have to oppose this piece of legislation, because we believe

[ Page 3368 ]

that there is something basically humiliating and degrading about having to take a means test. We really do believe that.

Specifically, when the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) talks about Mincome, you say you're tired of hearing about Mincome, but certainly one of the greatest things about Mincome is that it was not tied to a person's means or to their assets. If someone got Mincome who also had a large income, they ended up paying it back in income tax anyway. But what it meant was that people between the ages of 60 and 65 did not have to sit down and fill out these humiliating forms in terms of what their assets were and their means or whatever.

I want to talk specifically about one senior citizen, a woman, who said to me that she has in her savings money put aside to pay for her funeral. Now for some reason or another this is very important to her, that she be able to pay for her own funeral. And over the years that's all that she'd saved, $1,000 to pay for her funeral, and she absolutely refuses to apply for any form of support if she's going to have to declare this $1,000 which she has stashed away somewhere to pay for her funeral.

If she's called upon to spend it before she's eligible for her pension, she's just going to go without. You know, that is her attitude — all of her life she's saved absolutely nothing but her funeral is going to be paid for. She does not want to be buried by the state.

Now along comes a piece of legislation — and we really don't know what it is because we haven't got the regulations — in which she's going to have to fill out a form, you know, which asks questions about savings and one thing and another. If she has to go through that, she's made it absolutely clear that she's then going to have to survive without her pension.

Now I'm sorry that we bragged so much about Mincome, but the fact of the matter is that under the previous Social Credit government everybody who was poor was treated badly, but senior citizens were treated worse than anyone else. They really were, and that is the reason why our very first commitment when we became the government was to introduce a programme that righted that particular wrong, and that's the reason why we said everyone who has served, lived, worked and contributed to any part of this country, is entitled to some kind of dignity in their old age.

We guaranteed that — that they wouldn't have to go without, that the phenomenon of old people in this province eating cat food and dog food would come to an end.

If it upsets you that we continually brag about Mincome, that's too bad, because in fact it was a disgraceful situation in this province as far as old people were concerned. We did make a commitment. We did live up to that commitment, and that programme was called Mincome. We are very distressed that through this legislation you are now beginning to reverse things again and we are going to go back to the system where there are going to be some old people in this province, some people between the ages of 60 and 64 or whatever, who are going to feel that rather than fill out one of these forms, they are prepared to go without, they're going to be prepared to start eating cat food and dog food again.

You made a brilliant speech about where will the money come from. Five minutes ago we passed a piece of legislation which allowed the mining corporations to opt out of paying any decent kind of share — that's where the money comes from. When the resource industries and corporations pay their fair share of taxes, there is enough money: there is enough money to see to it that single-parent families have a decent income; there is enough money to ensure that senior citizens in this province can spend their years in dignity and without want. But when your government introduces legislation that allows them to not pay their fair share, then of course you are right, there isn't enough money, and in fact what we have is the single-parent mothers and senior citizens subsidizing the mining companies and the corporations. That is precisely what is going on.

Mr. Chairman, what I particularly want to hear from the minister is whether the regulations are nearly ready. Can he give us some hard, cold figures as to what the rates are going to be and also deal with some of these definitions? He's given himself a lot of leeway in terms of what is to be covered by regulations. We'd like to know something about those things.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first I should mention that I think the hon. member should be aware of the fact that a mine that's closed doesn't pay taxes; a mill that's shut doesn't pay taxes. So when you make reference to the previous bill, please do not do so without us both being able to debate that particular issue separately. I don't think we should get into that right now.

Also, I think it should be noted that a piece of legislation is certainly there as a statute on the books for all to see and for members to be aware of, so we can inform the public as to what exactly might be available to them in times of need in this particular instance. We have taken three Acts and combined them into one. We have done away with two Acts which were completely redundant. If the member isn't already aware, I would ask that she check with any member in the administration if she won't take my word for it and she'll find out that up until now, last year or the year before, it was no different — Mincome was regulated by regulation. It was not a pension; it was never a pension. It was a social assistance and it was regulated by regulation. If you

[ Page 3369 ]

won't take my word for it, check this out and you'll find this is so.

MR. LEVI: That's nonsense! That's absolute nonsense!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's how it was. Frankly, I should also point out that there was a similar, identical supplement available in 1972, 1971 and 1970. It was a supplement over and above the pension and the GIS.

MS. BROWN: Do you know what you're talking about? We don't, because we haven't seen the regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I must correct these wrongs you mentioned in your address, Hon. Member, because otherwise it will be on the books without correction. I won't go into detail, but again you made mention of $1,000 that the lady was concerned about because this was money she wished to keep for her funeral. These moneys are exempted in the asset test. So please, again, before you advise the lady, check these regulations.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just to put the record straight, the minister keeps insisting that Mincome was paid out under the same social assistance regulation. It was paid out under the same....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You're wrong! You're quite wrong. Just listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: It's paid out, Mr. Chairman, under the social assistance vote. But in terms of the social assistance regulations, they were different, because there was no asset test on Mincome. Well, sir, don't shake your head and say: "Yes, you're right, " and then tell me that you are right. You're wrong! It's different, that's what we're saying. You can't come here to whitewash and tell us that it was the same when it was in fact different.

He asks us: "Where will the money come from?" We knew there was a problem about getting the money. That's why the member for Vancouver East...that your government and the people of British Columbia this year will benefit by $200 million of new revenue that we created, that we went looking for. We were fed up with subsidizing the Americans at the expense of senior citizens in this province. That's why we introduced the petroleum corporation and charged higher prices for the export on gas — for revenue to pay for the programme.

You can't come in here and tell us that because a mine is closed...as though they are the great revenue makers in this province in terms of taxation. That's nonsense. They're not. So don't use the example of the mine — 700 mines on the stock exchange and 22 producing mines. So what you are talking about in terms of that kind of revenue? The thing is that the programme is different.... What interests me is that he gets up to say that he's upset and he's almost fed up with hearing about Mincome.

Here's his own pamphlet — GAIN — and what has he done in the middle? He's got a picture, not of some little dancing girl and a single mother, but three old people. Right in the middle he's got "65 plus, 60 to 64, 55 to 59." What's he so twitchy about? When they pick it up, he wants them to be assured that Mincome is safe, so that's how he presents it. Well, it isn't safe and they're not conned by that sort of thing. They won't be conned. Right now there is a feeling in this province...and every member of this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, is getting letters from senior citizens who are in a complete blue funk about what's going on.

Now if you wanted to give credibility to this legislation, follow practice — come in with legislation and let's have a look at the regulations; at least tell us the levels, When we introduced changes in terms of the social assistance rates, we always brought them into the House — always. We made statements right from over there telling people what the rates would be. You haven't told us this. We have asked you time and time again: "What are the levels going to be?" I've asked you: "Are the 65 people going to get the same as the 60 to 64 and the 55 to 59?"

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Exactly, you haven't told us this.

MR. KING: On a means test, he'd never make the cabinet.

MR. LEVI: Oh, no, no. Listen, he's got the right kind of rhetoric to make that cabinet. That's the way it goes.

You've simply got to lay it out for people to really settle them down out there, because they don't know. You say that you want to create an equality of balance. You are doing it at the expense of other senior citizens who are not going to qualify for your programme. That's the great tragedy of the theory that you have that you want to create a balance. We know, for instance, with the single people who are on welfare that they go through the system at about 50 per cent every month. We know that there is some rollover in terms of the single-family people because

[ Page 3370 ]

of the day-care programme, because of the special services for children — there are a range of options.

But senior citizens have no options — no options. They can't work because nobody will employ them; they can't even qualify for unemployment insurance any more. The thing is, you talk about a balance, but you have made it unbalanced. You are going to cut off a large number of people who should qualify, simply because you are using an asset test which you say, because you're going to get cost-sharing from Ottawa, you'll be able to apply somewhere else.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to the minister: this is not the way you deal with human beings. We are a wealthy province. We had to make the position very clear to the citizens of this province that we have to assist the people who can't help themselves. Certainly we put a burden on some of the people in this province, but they paid and they paid it willingly. For you to suggest that they won't continue to pay it is wrong. It may very well be that now it's more difficult for them to pay....

You've raised every possible tax there was to raise; you've raised the ferry rates. Obviously they are under a burden. But don't tell me that what you're trying to do is to be fair and have a balance, because that doesn't work. Have you got an agreement with Ottawa on the 55 to 59s? You've got an agreement which will allow you to pay the same level as the 65 and overs on the 60 to 64s? The minister doesn't nod his head.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that what we're going to get is varied levels of payment. You're going to have a bureaucratic battle over there in terms of the department having to work out asset tests, having to chase up people — an enormous bureaucracy, very frustrating. What you're going to achieve is the thing you said you didn't want to achieve: you did not want to prevent people from coming forward who needed it. They're already scared out there. They're already scared because, as the first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) said, it's true that the funeral expenses are exempt, but people don't know that because the rhetoric that has been taking place in this province is scaring every body. They think if they've got any money at all they are not going to qualify. Later on, when we get into the other section — the witch-hunt section, as I call it — where you can go back five years, what's going to happen to people there?

The thing is, it's the rhetoric, the lack of information, Mr. Chairman, that that minister...he has not given it to us, and consequently it's very, very difficult. We must be sceptical because the action that have taken place up to now make us sceptical. You have knocked out the kinds of qualifications for day care. You have knocked out the kinds of qualifications for special needs. You have changed the level of the handicapped pension. You have change the 60 to 64 to an income test.

We have to look at performance, and the performance, Mr. Chairman, is that we cannot gain from the information in this bill whether, in fact, it will work the way the minister says. We have every indication that it will not, because based on the amount of money that you have in your budget, you can't possibly deliver the same level of pay to the 55 to 59s and the 60 to 64s and the over-65s, and we are not including the single-parent people. I am sceptical, and unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the minister is not assisting us, particularly in relation to this section.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to ask the minister: in respect to the agreements with Canada — the Canada Assistance Plan — the three areas of meetings that the federal and provincial ministers had were attempts to bring in an income-supplementation programme to the working poor and particularly to the single families. Perhaps he would explain to us what kind of agreements has he got at the moment in terms of cost-sharing that will assist him in the 55 to 59.

Now as I understand it, it's not yet concluded, but perhaps he would inform us, because we only have the information from the federal minister who indicates that that legislation probably will not be on the books until probably next spring and probably will not be operable until the fiscal year starting in 1978. Now does the minister have some kind of an arrangement for cost-sharing? Perhaps he could tell us that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we're speaking of two different issues here. But certainly the one with respect to a guaranteed income supplement programme is being pursued by the province and we're hoping that perhaps we may enter into an agreement with Ottawa, even if only on a trial basis for some areas of the province.

We believe that the guaranteed income supplement programme has a lot of potential in making it far more profitable for people to work as opposed to, say, welfare or other means of assistance. It provides incentives and this is certainly in keeping with our philosophy and policy.

Regarding the other matter of concluding with Ottawa the figures that might be paid to those 55 to 60, we are still and were up until half an hour ago, when I was in my office, negotiating with Ottawa the figures that we can use within the regulations. All has not been finalized, but I can tell the member this: I received today or just now a copy of a news release from the Manitoba government with respect to what they have done to their rates.

[ Page 3371 ]

I can assure the member that in all categories our rates will far surpass the Manitoba rates. I can assure the member also that the increases will be sizeable and far beyond what might be discussed when we're talking in terms of AIB and suchlike. They'll be sizeable increases and they'll be provided in the areas of greatest needs.

I know that much of what is normally spelled out in the regulations would be of help to you if it were available now. Regulations with respect to social assistance are not something new. Up until now we had two pages of Social Assistance Act and 23 pages of regulations.

The former minister knows that he had the same 23 pages of regulations to contend with. We will again have 23 pages of regulations in all probability. They'll be different. They'll vary and we're negotiating these variables with Ottawa right now, but there's no change in that respect. It's a whole lot clearer now in the Act as to what the intentions of the government are than what was previously spelled out in the old Social Assistance Act, which has been there a long time.

MR. LEVI: I was going to try once more to see whether we can get some inkling as to what the levels might be. Now at the present time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we're on agreements with Canada.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's true. Rates are something that have to be checked with Canada because you have to get agreement on sharing, providing they're not too high and there's an earnings exemption, Mr. Chairman. It's very much within this. But I won't be very long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. LEVI: What I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman.... At the present time two people — let's take a single parent and a child — are receiving $270. That's the basic allowance and that's cost-shared because there's an agreement with Ottawa on that. There's also an agreement to pay 75 per cent on the part of the province for the rental overage. That overage is cost-shared too. Now the minister indicated that the increases would go beyond the AIB. Well, I certainly hope they will go beyond the AIB because the AIB only looks at 8 plus 2 plus 2; so that's 12.

But let me see what I can get from the minister, Mr. Chairman. The $270 — can we say that we are looking to the possibility that a single parent with a child would be making in excess of $325 a month as a basic payment? Is that what we're looking at? After all, that represents about a 20 per cent increase. The minister indicates that he can't tell. Well, the thing is that it would have helped us, I think, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would have come to us and given us the number of levels of payments with an optimum of which he would like to see if he could get sharing and then down to what's probably going to be feasible.

Because the difficulty that we always had with Ottawa — and I appreciate the difficulties that he has dealing with Ottawa. We went through that often enough. The trouble with Ottawa is that when you attempt to do something on an innovative basis, as we wanted to do in terms of the lower-income working poor, to give them not only up to the social assistance level but to give them also the earning exemption level....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: They wouldn't agree to that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: That's because, I guess, they weren't prepared to cost-share. So we're obviously not going to get any figures from the minister. I would hope that we will have an opportunity at some later date to get at it, once we've got something in practice.

I would hope, again, that when the minister does finally release the regulations.... I wish he wouldn't keep going back to the regulations and legislation because, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it's nice to have well-oiled smooth legislation, and I suppose when one can get around to doing that kind of thing, it's nice, but it's only on a piece of paper. What really counts is the way the thing is put into practice. Obviously, as you introduce the kind of programme you have, your regulations will far surpass the 23 pages that presently exist. That's an inevitability because you're going to have to interpret the legislation to the staff and to the public.

Section 4 approved.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this section is the one that deals with discrimination. It says that the administration of social services, et cetera, shall be based on no discrimination on the basis of race, colour, creed or political affiliation. I'm kind of curious why the minister did not include sex and marital status. Maybe he can explain it to me — section 7. Sex and marital status are missing as grounds on which you will not discriminate in the distribution of services. Would you explain to me why?

[ Page 3372 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know how the hon. member feels about sex or about the different sexes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry, about the different sexes. But I think to make reference here to the sexes alone is discriminatory. I think the fact that we haven't for once, referred to male or female is in itself a forward move. There's certainly, obviously, no intent whatsoever here or anywhere else to discriminate between male or female.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as someone who's worked as a social worker for a number of years, I know that women and men are treated differently under this Act. I was hoping, quite frankly, that this new minister was going to wipe out the different ways in which males and females are treated under the Act. This is why I am so sorry that you did not include the word "sex" or the words "marital status" as grounds under which there would be no discrimination. This is very serious.

As the Act presently stands, there are some regulations that apply to women and which don't apply to men, and vice versa — that apply to male single parents but don't apply to female single parents, and vice versa. Would you be willing to consider an amendment which would include sex and marital status as grounds under which you would not be discriminating in terms of administering this piece of legislation?

If you are willing to amend it at some other time, that's fine, now that I've brought it to your attention.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will certainly assure the hon. member that, again, there's certainly no intent. I will certainly defend every move that is made towards making it more clear, if that's what's required. If there is a situation where someone is discriminating between male or female, as you've mentioned, I wouldn't stand for this. I know we don't have the opportunity now to research what you've suggested, but I will consider such an amendment on the next round.

MR. LEVI: I just want to ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman. During his estimates I asked him a couple of questions regarding grants to Indian people. One of the problems I found when we were government was that there had been a practice by the previous government — the old Social Credit government — of always referring Indian people to the First Citizens' Fund for everything. We made it a practice, very much, that Indian people should be dealt with in exactly the same way by going through the various departments — that is, if it was a question of an industrial development, they went to industrial development. We tried very much to confine the First Citizens' Fund in terms of the cultural aspect.

I asked, during his estimates, about two grants. Discussions were going with another department. What I'd like to know from the minister is this: is he prepared and is he continuing to deal with Indian people in terms of their request for service? I'm not now talking about social assistance, because if they are on reserves, they obviously have to do their own programme. But in terms of their requests for service — homemaker service, day-care development and the whole range of services given by the department — is it the minister's policy to deal with them as citizens, and will they receive these programmes, or is he directing them to some other department?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly very well aware of the fact that there are many services lacking on many of the reservations, and they've been lacking for a good long time.

With this realization we have commenced negotiations with the Hon. Judd Buchanan in Ottawa to ensure that some formula is devised by which we can give these services to the province in an equal manner and have the compensation from Ottawa as it's now given to Ontario and other provinces. Hopefully, we can conclude such an agreement in the not-too-distant future.

MR. LEVI: That's not quite the question I asked the minister. I asked him if he was continuing the practice of making available programmes through the department. Now what he had told us is that until they have concluded an agreement with the Department of Indian Affairs no such programmes will be made available. Am I correct in presuming this?

We did not deal in developing programmes with the Department of Indian Affairs. That's a monstrous kind of undertaking. The previous government decided to deal with the Indian people in terms of all programmes except the social-assistance programme in the same way as any other citizen in the province. The minister has just indicated that they are discussing the dollar cost-sharing. Does that mean that you are not going to make available programmes before cost-sharing is worked out?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, if I can use this analogy regarding the needs of the Indian people with respect to the type of services mentioned by the hon. member, if it were water I could fill a bucket. What's been thrown in over the last three years wouldn't equal a drop. We need a whole lot more than what's been done, and we're negotiating with Ottawa to that end.

[ Page 3373 ]

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure that after my few brief comments, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Human Resources will be in agreement, and will certainly want to remove any doubt as to the indiscriminate methods by which the department will be administering social-assistance funds to recipients. As section 7 presently reads, in the administration of income assistance or social services there shall be no discrimination based on race, colour, creed or political affiliation. I'm merely asking the.minister to include also "place of residence, " to ensure that all citizens will have an opportunity to receive benefits without discrimination whatsoever.

By adding "place of residence" they will not be hesitant in applying because of.previous regulations that have sent out through the Department of Human Resources, such as the one, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, involving the 175 places that were designated as off limits for welfare recipients. I think the minister would not want people to feel that they're not free to live anywhere in the province of British Columbia, just as all other citizens are free to do in this society by virtue of their unfortunate financial situation. I think it is a fairly serious amendment that ensures that democratic principles and ideals are maintained. By not amending this section it would appear as though persons on welfare are going to be distinguished in more ways than by their unfortunate financial situation — they would also be required to live within designated areas.

It's one of those things that I feel we don't want to have any doubt about. I'm hoping that the minister will stand and explain why those regulations were passed in the first place designating 175 areas. I would like him to explain. Perhaps there are some things I don't understand about it, but I think when you reconsider the effect it is having on people's lives you may want to ensure that it's not the direction in which this government is going — creating classes of people in certain segments of the community and telling them that they can only live in certain places. I would hope that he would want to comment on that and that this amendment would be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. BARNES: I thought that at least the minister would give some comment on what I said. I thought it was pretty important. Even if you vote against couldn't you comment on the matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

Amendment negatived.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I am curious as to why they chose the consumer price index and didn't look at the industrial composite. The minister may be aware that when looking at the indexing of the Canada Pension Plan that the decision by all the ministers across Canada was to use the industrial composite, which is really a much better reflection of.... It reflects first of all the average gains by the labour sector and also is a much better reflection of what people need in terms of an increase in indexing.

I don't know whether the minister is looking at the bill or whether he's looking at something else.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's looking at the bill.

MR. LEVI: He's looking at the bill. Mr. Chairman, I am referring to section 8 asking the minister why they went with the consumer price index and not with the industrial composite which is being used with the Canada Pension Plan, which is a much better index, I feel.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member, Mr. Chairman, may well have a very good point, and that is why it says "or any other index approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

MS. BROWN: Very briefly — I spoke at great length on this section. I think it is good that there is going to be additional coverage to single parents with dependent children. However, what I tried to point out, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is that experience with the aid to dependent children legislation in the United States, which does exactly the same thing, tended to exacerbate the whole matter or situation. Really it became more profitable to separate than to stay together. We found that it really was a threat to poor families.

Now in section 2 you have given yourself, through you, Mr. Chairman, the right to extend this service to anyone else who you think should receive it. It seemed to me that the extended coverage should be open to anyone who needs it and there shouldn't be the special designation for single families. Okay? Because it does serve to be a threat to the poor families and they don't need that additional kind of

[ Page 3374 ]

threat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If I can comment briefly. Certainly we've recognized this very fact and it is a matter of negotiating with Ottawa still because there is cost-sharing involved. But we've recognized it.

Section 11 approved.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment which stands in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 16 as amended.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, there is some language in this section which does give a number of people apparently in the field, as well as lawyers.... I refer to the section 16(1), which relates to the subrogation of the rights of an individual in respect to maintenance payments.

Now a number of people have looked at this, and I just want to point this out to the minister. If you go to section 16(1), you'll see that whenever a person receives any of the benefits that are laid out, that they are entitled to receive, all of their rights to maintenance are subrogated to the Crown. Now as an example, a family of a working husband with a monthly income of $1,200 and a non-working wife and one child — if the wife and the child are forced from the family home by the husband, the wife's got two choices. Either she gets a job and applies for day-care benefits, or goes on welfare. Now in either case she is receiving a social assistance within the definition.

Now the thing is that if she only went to the Department of Human Resources for counselling or advice, she would be within the definition. So similarly, if she went to legal aid to pursue a divorce or maintenance she would be within the definition. She also has a right under the Family Relations Act to maintenance. Now she's clearly within the section 16(1) if she's in receipt of income assistance or social services and has a right to maintenance under the Act.

Now the question is, all of her rights under this Act have been subrogated to the Crown, and here is an example of some of the difficulties. She can't, for instance, apply on her own behalf for maintenance in a family court, since all of her rights to do so have been subrogated by the Crown. Now what I am saying is that this is a very broad section in which anyone who is in receipt of any kind of services is, in fact, a creature of the Crown and has a great deal of difficulty in moving in terms of maintenance. That's a very important question in terms of the way single parents particularly are going to operate. Now I don't think that in terms of the legislation.... I have spoken in the general principle of the bill, that this kind of legislation was not necessarily covered under the Family Relations Act.

But the indications we have from a number of people I have spoken to in the field are that this has gone far beyond that, that we are taking away certain rights of action on the part of single women who are separated to do a range of things which is to their advantage simply because they may be in receipt of a particular social service from the department. I am not talking about social assistance now; I am talking about day care and maybe homemaker. I think that's a very serious infringement on the rights of people — whether it's a single parent, whether it's a woman or a man. And there are single men who are single parents. This is a very serious section, I think, in terms of the rights of people.

Unfortunately, what we really need to do, depending on what happens here, is have some reference to the Human Rights Code on this, because I think there is a very serious imposition on the rights of people in terms of this section, Mr. Minister. I don't know whether you've caught the complete drift of what I am saying — I realize it's a somewhat technical matter — but it is a very serious matter, the subrogation of rights of the Crown. I'm not aware, and I can be corrected, that such a similar kind of power is vested in the Crown in any other piece of legislation, particularly in this....

I would like just to recap for a minute. What I am saying is that any person who receives any kind of service from the department — it can be social assistance or any other kind — if they are receiving day care and then get into a situation where there is a requirement to get maintenance, then the department steps in and takes over the role.

In terms of the social services field, it is very important that we move away from the whole business of directing people in terms of what they have to do; they have to show some initiative themselves. Here they are completely cut off in terms of that maintenance question, and, as I said earlier, this section really is not relevant to the operation of the Department of Human Resources. You have the Family Relations Act in which you can operate quite well. I think in your earnestness to get into the business of maintenance and this kind of thing, you've done it at the expense of the rights of individuals, and in the majority of cases they are single women.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I must answer the member because I am very proud of

[ Page 3375 ]

this particular section, and I am sure it will do a great deal for a good many people who are presently suffering a whole lot of anguish, anxiety and mental strain because at some time they may have to face the ex-husband in court on a matter of maintenance. This will do a whole lot for these people.

I am sure the hon. member who spoke is well aware of the hundreds of thousands of people throughout the province who annually tell the department about this type of situation. They are pleased that there is now a ray of hope, a light, a possible chance of someone else being able to take away all these difficult times that they and their families face in a court of law. We will act on behalf of these people and on behalf of the department.

I know, as you mentioned, that lawyers will find fault with this, and naturally there is no law in the world, I am sure, that the lawyers won't find fault with. Perhaps they now could take action under the Family Relations Act, but it would mean the woman having to go to court and then possibly collecting $100. Here they stand a chance, through the department, of getting what's coming to that particular individual or the department in return.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, no one is arguing that what the minister is trying to do is not a great thing. It's fine that you are now going to start collecting maintenance on behalf of women or men who normally can't collect it. But in exchange for this service, you are absolutely taking away all of their rights. That's what the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) is saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Sorry. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this light that you referred to is blinding; it's destroying. It's fine that the department is now going to take over the whole unpleasantness of going through the courts tracking down the spouse who is reneging on the commitment. That is very good. But in exchange for that there are far too many rights which now become the rights of the department.

Aside from the financial aspect, because under the present system the spouse who is collecting maintenance gets to keep a $100, you are even going to take that $100 away.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You are not going to take that basic $100 away? In section 2 it says that everything is assigned to the Crown — the whole works is assigned to the Crown. Now that's fine if you are going to allow that basic $100 plus whatever the person would normally receive in social assistance — $100 plus whatever the person would receive in social assistance. Then the only thing that needs to be amended and changed in this section is either the definition of social services — which is so very broad that it includes everything; it is an absolutely blanket definition; it goes much too far — or specifically state that it does not include, or eliminates, some of the things which you now demand under that section. It's a very destructive section. What you are doing is good, but you are demanding too much in repayment for that service. For the right of collecting maintenance, you are taking everything away. It's too much.

MR. LEVI: There did exist within the regulations the right of the department to initiate on behalf of a woman or a man — I appreciate the difficulties a separated spouse has in initiating those kinds of proceedings in a court, particularly if there'a a future attempt at reconciliation — but that was all. But, Mr. Chairman, what the minister has got himself into is that he wants to go collecting maintenance, which was already being done by another department of government.

He says that there may be complications in terms of the courts. Let me give you another example. All family court applications for maintenance — in cases where the applicant is receiving any of the types of benefits that I described — must be brought by the Crown. The question then becomes a bureaucratic one: which case are you going to proceed with? Which one will you not proceed with? What happens to the individual? The thing is that once you start getting into these discretionary type situations, you're going to have an enormous bureaucracy, and particularly that the collection system, the maintenance system, at the moment is being operated by the Attorney-General's department. So what we can see from this....

I think that we have a right, Mr. Chairman, as members of the opposition, to point out that what we're heading into really is a monstrous bureaucratic bottleneck. That's one of the dangers of this kind of thing. With the best will in the world to want to do something for the separated spouses, which was possible before, we are now going to get into a monstrous bottleneck about which case we are going to proceed with and which one we are not going to proceed with. Then there also are other problems that flow from that, Mr. Chairman.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm very concerned about section 17. To me, section 17 seems to go back 30 or 40 years and the kind of approach

[ Page 3376 ]

that was taken to delving into a person's financial and personal background, because it's all there — the provision is all there, as I read this section, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. It's all there.

Five years previous to applying for some sort of assistance, a person who has disposed of property through, perhaps, poor judgment for an amount that the minister considers inadequate — I suggest that is too wide open, Mr. Chairman. Much too wide open.

It goes on to say: "If he reduces his assets or those of his spouse... " If this is why he has done this...and the minister is going to make that decision. We're talking about people in the age 60 group, or we are talking about handicapped people who perhaps are not familiar with the business world. One error in judgment in a business deal could put a person in a position where they would not be eligible under this Act.

He can refuse to accept income or assets that would, in the opinion of the minister, be sufficient to enable one to exist, to be wholly or partly independent. Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to go back to the stage of going around to see whether or not sons and daughters who would be recipients of assistance from the provincial government are going to be subjected to an inquisition as to what their assets are — whether or not they can support a parent? It's wide open to provide this kind of opportunity, and the minister has the say on this.

I would just ask the minister to withdraw that whole section. To me it savours of something that's long gone, Mr. Chairman.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, section 18(c) gives the minister the right to declare a person ineligible for assistance who terminates employment for other than medical reasons.

Now he refers continually to "he." I realize that the "he" applies to he and she at the same time, but in fact most men who would not be able to work possibly would be because of their medical reason. But there are a lot of reasons why a single-parent mother would find that her employment must be terminated which have nothing to do with her health. Now why should she be declared ineligible for social assistance, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, because she fails to meet the requirement in subsection (c)?

It's much too limited and it absolutely cuts off a lot of people who should be eligible for assistance — people who find that they've worked at a job for a time but because of the age of their children, or because of the health of their children, or because of one reason or another, mental, physical or otherwise, they must stop working and stay at home. Now we are being told under this section that that person would not be eligible for social assistance because the employment was terminated for other than the person's medical reason.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, if it will make the hon. member feel more at ease, this has been in the regulations for a long time now. All we've done is take it out of the regulations and place it in the Act so it's there for everyone to see. It's not a change.

MS. BROWN: Now that it's been brought to your attention, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, would you be willing to consider the fact that it really isn't fair? It shouldn't be in there. There are a lot of reasons other than medical reasons why a mother of small children would stop working.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, it's been in the regulations and it's been in use for some considerable time. If sometime in the future we find that it's not workable, absolutely we'll consider a change.

MRS. WALLACE: My question is regarding section (a), and I don't know whether that has been in the regulations before or not. I'm concerned about the interpretation of the word "ability." Now the case that comes to my attention as an example would be, say, a pianist or a violinist who perhaps was temporarily unable to get work at that particular skill, but there was a job available running a jackhammer or digging a ditch, which he might have the ability to fill but which would do things to his hands which would make it impossible for him to really function in his own calling.

That's just an example, a very specific one, that comes to mind. But there are lots of emotional sorts of things and things relative to a person's makeup if there's, say, an artistic temperament — where they might have the physical ability to perform some very ordinary or mundane kind of a job, but what it would do to them emotionally and psychologically might be detrimental. I'm wondering how you interpret that word "ability."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think that spells out clearly a difference of philosophy. I believe that if an artist is unable to perform as an artist because there's no opportunity for him as an artist, then he shouldn't come to the state for money while there's some other job to be done. That's a difference of philosophy, and that's why it's there.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

[ Page 3377 ]

On section 20.

MR. LEVI: Just on the penalty section: the previous penalty was $200 and three months; we now have a situation where we've gone to a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six months. Then it goes on to say "or both." In addition, the court may order him to pay to the Minister of Finance — and this is the clause that concerns me — a penalty not exceeding double the amount of money obtained, or the cost of the social services received. That, to me, is an incredible kind of power that somebody should take unto them.

But what interests me more specifically is that almost an identical section in terms of penalties appeared in the previous Bill 57 — Mineral Resources Tax Act. There is a section there, Mr. Chairman, which says "false returns." Presumably, in terms of the fraudulent claims, one can make the same kind of assumption where they deal with the same kind of thing — a fine up to $2,000 but no prison sentence, no mention of prison sentence for the mining companies.

If a penalty of..... Is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $2,000. If the tax that should be shown by the return to be payable is more than $50... a penalty of not less than $2,000 and not more than double the amount." Now, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the concept of equality under the law, but how is it possible that the minister can be part of legislation which, first of all, goes to the extent of $2,000 or $4,000 or whatever the amount of money is, for people who have no money in the first place?

This is an enormous jump from $200 and three months imprisonment to $2,000 or a possibility of doubling. What kind of sense is there in that kind of legislation? How can one compare individuals like that, who have nothing, with mining companies? That is the kind of penalties that exist for mining companies, except that there is no statement about imprisonment.

The fact that the mining company has sources of revenue...it just seems to be ridiculous in the extreme to go this far — ridiculous to the extreme. I'm not aware of any other kind of legislation in any part of this country that exists in such a punitive way and with no possibility.... What you're doing in there is ensuring that people will go to jail. That's what you're doing.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

On section 25.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to get an explanation from the minister. Section 26(f) says: "determining the value of assets of an individual and determining, in respect to that value, the rate or amount of income assistance or social services, if any, to which the individual or a class of individuals is entitled where he is (i) 55 years or older, or (ii) handicapped, or a member of any other class."

Can I ask the minister if this is the category 26(f) that places every person who will receive service under the legislation in exactly the same category as everybody else, that in fact, they are all now "welfare" recipients? section 26(f) — am I right in presuming that, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister? Section 26(f) is the one which lays out the classes of people who are entitled to receive assistance. Does that mean that everybody is in the same boat now, that there is no difference between anybody over the age of 55, anybody who is handicapped and anybody who is in receipt of other social services? I am asking the minister if that is the case.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again, this is a statement of fact which was previously spelled out in the regulations and which is now listed clearly in the Act. It is really no change.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the retroactive section of this Act. I just want to say that this is absolutely the most punitive, vicious and cruel piece of legislation ever brought down by this government against the poor people of this province. I am thoroughly disgusted with it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I must reply to that

[ Page 3378 ]

again, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, the member for lack of information is misleading the House, because certainly....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: This entire bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member withdraw?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry. The retroactive portion refers to that section which deals with private hospitals.

Section 29 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Now, with leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 28, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 12

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

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion relative to the auditor-general committee.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee of selection appointed by this House March 17, 1976, authorized by order of the House on the 22nd day of June last, to appoint a special committee of the Legislature to recommend the person to be appointed as auditor-general, as provided under section 2 of the Auditor General Act, be respectively authorized to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and that the said committees be further empowered, respectively, to sit outside the precincts of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 77.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 77; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. KING: On section 2, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister, if he would, to explain precisely what is his objective in the amendment contained in section 2. I would like to hear his comments on that. What is his rationale and justification?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): This is drafting amendment to section 57. As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) will recognize, an application for certification can be made under either section 39 or 40 of the code; therefore the non obstante provision in section 57 should be expanded to include section 40 as well as section 39.

MR. WALLACE: In amending this section which deals with the certification of councils, I read from the original section that this empowers the minister of his own motion so to certify. I am wondering if this would be one of the avenues that is being

[ Page 3379 ]

considered at the present time in dealing with the serious dispute in the construction industry. Is that the kind of situation which this amendment to the section would empower the minister to implement?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the opportunities which presents itself in the present difficult dispute and if a council of unions seems to be possible or appropriate, I would like to advise the hon. member that I will have no hesitation in giving the appropriate direction under section 57.

However, in view of the negotiations which have been going on non-stop today, let me hasten to add, in case these words should be heard outside this chamber, that at this particular time it would be most inappropriate for the Minister of Labour to exercise the authority given under section 57.

If I may transgress momentarily on the committee, meetings have been going on non-stop with the unions who are involved in the construction industry in British Columbia today, and are still going on, for the purpose of determining whether or not they can provide that common front of negotiations which the employers have indicated they wish to meet in the resolution of the current dispute.

I wish to commend the unions for this action because it is precisely the action that the former Minister of Labour (Mr. King) prior to December 11, 1975, took in writing with the unions, and which I was happy to take in response to his actions, to encourage just such a result as is taking place today. I wish the unions well in achieving that end and therefore, hopefully, the earliest possible settlement of the dispute and the resumption of work.

MR. WALLACE: I just wanted to confirm that by inserting this, that either section 39 or 40 apply, that in no way minimizes the initial intent of the section 57 that the minister, regardless of sections 39 and 40, can under circumstances he might deem advisable, take the initiative of certifying unions into a council of unions. Sections 39 and 40 are presumably the more regular way in which trade unions would seek to form a council.

I just want to be very clear in my mind that although we've amended it, the minister still has the authority if he decides that it is an advisable route to go — namely, that he can take the initiative, still under section 57, despite the amendment. Is the minister still able to initiate the certification of a council of unions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The amendment does not diminish the authority under the code, section 57. If anything, it expands the scope of that authority.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. KING: On section 3, I think it was pointed out in second reading that I think this is an abuse of the authority that section 73 contains at the moment. I think that the minister is taking unto himself broad powers which are completely unnecessary and which in the long term are not going to do anything to contribute to industrial peace.

I think it is unfortunate that he has extended the period for arbitrary government intervention from 21 to 40 cooling-off days. I think that will be viewed by the trade union movement, and some management groups, as undue authority to the minister. Particularly distressing is the fact that the minister will now have the latitude to apply that provision, and, presumably, the rest of the provisions of section 73 to any industry, not only police, firemen and hospital unions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to debate the section again. It was adequately covered in second reading. But I would like to assure the member that the amendment only applies to section 73(7) and it does not change the restrictions that are in the other sections of the bill.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I made my point in second reading also on this question of government intervention in the conduct of strike votes, and I had some fairly harsh things to say about the new approach being taken by the Minister of Labour.

He apparently responded in harsh fashion also that evening while I was out of the House. I've had the occasion to read the Blues, Mr. Chairman, with respect to some of the things he said in justifying this particular section, section 4, which gives that authority for the government to intervene in the conduct of a strike vote.

Of all things I find that the Minister of Labour had to rely on the most unrealistic and irrational arguments to justify his position. I'm going to quote what he said, reading on page 407-3 of the Blues of Tuesday night last:

"However, let me also hasten to say, before any member of a union organization in British Columbia or a management organization thinks that it is this government which decided upon the secret ballot, that it was the NDP who decided upon the secret ballot. The provisions of the Labour Code as they stand today introduced into this Legislature by the New Democratic Party call specifically, and I will

[ Page 3380 ]

read: 'No person shall declare or authorize a strike, and no employee shall strike until after a strike vote has been taken by secret ballot.' Those are the words of the NDP; those are the words which were introduced in legislation brought in by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. This isn't something that we suddenly decided upon."

Mr. Chairman, certainly it's always been true that a secret ballot was required with respect to certification votes and to strike votes. That was the system advocated. But the minister is deceiving the House when he suggests that government intervention was ever provided for in terms of how that secret ballot was conducted.

He goes on to try to draw an analogy between the powers he has taken under section 4 to intervene in what I consider to be the internal affairs of a union and the process for gaining certification. That's patent nonsense.

He refers to sections 54 and 55 of the Labour Code. Mr. Chairman, as he well knows, sections 54 and 55 are under the heading of Part III of the code dealing with the acquisition and termination of bargaining rights, and have got absolutely nothing to do with the strike vote, nothing whatsoever.

In the process of gaining certification the union is in a competing position often with another trade union. Of course there's a machinery, a mechanism for regulating the vote in the same way there's a mechanism for regulating the vote in provincial elections.

It's bogus and patently wrong for that minister to draw an analogy between that process and use it as justification for introducing government intervention and control over the internal practice of the unions setting their own policy as to whether or not there should be a strike. There's no conflict there, there's no outside interest other than the union's right to exercise that power.

Where there's a certification contest underway there are often competing unions; it's required by law that there must be a majority of the employees vote in support of the union. Obviously there has to be an impartial process of determining that voting procedure. The minister knows that, and to try and sell the House on the idea that this was an NDP proposition is patent nonsense. Those provisions existed before the Labour Code of British Columbia under the old Labour Relations Act of B.C.

The minister's a lawyer, Mr. Chairman; he must know better than the story he tried to sell to this House in my absence. I think it's shocking. I wanted to make that point.

I strongly object to the section. I predict it's not going to contribute anything. In fact, it's going to inflame the industrial relations scene in British Columbia. The minister has taken umbrage, Mr. Chairman, at some of the remarks I have made, and he's predicted that my remarks are going to do some damage.

I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that nothing that's said in this chamber is going to affect the attitude of people involved in the industrial relations world out there. The only facts that are going to affect that climate are the conduct of that minister and the legislation he provides, the conduct of his department. I find it very unfortunate that I predict a pretty gloomy couple of years down the road.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm really sorry that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan wasn't here the other evening. I'm sure he had something important to do when we were debating second reading of this important legislation. I think perhaps if he had been present he might have understood better the legislation which is before us.

I'm glad to hear him say that, "nothing which is said in this House is going to worsen the situation with regard to labour-management relations in this province," and I wish to assure him and the other members of this committee that under my ministry this legislation will be handled in such a way as will enhance industrial peace in this province.

I would, however, like to comment on one matter that the member said. He spoke of sections 54 and 55 of the code, and said that "of course, there were competing interests involved when a vote was called for in that particular case." Well, that's the difference between this side of the House and the other. We happen to believe that when anything as important as a strike vote is taken, there are competing interests which have to be taken into account not only within the union itself but as between the union, the employer and that third party who is entitled to be given the full consideration at the time that such an important step as we are witnessing here today is taken.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments. Now we're getting down to the precise facts and the minister acknowledges that the certification process which he presides over in the Labour Code which grants the clear and unequivocal right to a trade union, once it's won a representation vote, to act as the sole bargaining agent for those workers.... The minister is saying he doesn't really believe in that process. He is not really prepared to grant that right to the union, because he says there's a third interest that he's going to use in terms of tempering the rights that have been granted to them by essence of the certification, which he presides over. He's going to temper that out of concern for the interest of the community, he says.

Well, a strike vote is often a weapon in terms of just bargaining and not being exercised. The minister

[ Page 3381 ]

knows that. It's a bargaining tool at the table in terms of exercising economic pressure, but he's going to anticipate that there's going to be inconvenience or damage to the community and he's going to intervene before that even occurs. That's what he's saying, Mr. Chairman, I don't accept that. I think that once that union goes through the framework of law which obligates it to demonstrate that they have a majority of the employees in the unit supporting them and they gain certification as the legal bargaining agent, then they have a right to function in a private way — in the same way that a fraternal organization does in our society, a free democratic institution.

I don't think the Minister of Labour should be presuming any lack of democratization with respect to the internal affairs of that union or any management corporation either. I don't see him intervening in the boardroom decisions of management with respect to shareholders, and he should not be taking this direction with respect to the rights of the trade union movement.

If their strike right is abused and there flows damage to the community, certainly he's justified — he and his government — in making an appraisal at the time and taking legislative action if necessary. But anticipating that the unions are less than democratic and that their right, granted to them through his own certification process, should be tempered in anticipation of some abuses is patently wrong and I think will profoundly impair the industrial relations climate in this province, unfortunately.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would wish that the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan would take the time to read the second subsection of this amendment, because the second subsection which gives to the Labour Relations Board the right to make a judgment upon the way in which a strike vote is to be taken is similar to the same authority that the Labour Code gives to that board with regard to anything as important as dealing with the certification of the unions under section 54. Unless you provide some regulation by which you can judge whether the responsibility is carried out, it's impossible for the board to do that job. You can't say to the board judge whether the vote has been democratic when the board has no guidelines upon which to make that judgment. That's precisely what subsection (2) does and that's why we're going to provide regulations — the same as we provided in 55. It's a similar case.

MR. KING: One more brief comment. The minister doesn't understand. I've certainly read the subsection. There are a number of other things wrong with this. As I read it, Mr. Chairman, the Labour Relations Board has the right upon a complaint to intervene and to veto a strike vote that has been taken and order another vote.

The Labour Relations Board has the power and the authority to do this at the request of the employer. I think that's patently wrong. This will be used as a device by employers to intervene in and prolong negotiations. It certainly will. Again, Mr. Chairman, the minister shows a complete lack of understanding of industrial relations when he fails to discern between the need to regulate a competing vote dealing with certification — two unions each seeking to represent workers.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Sure, there has to be an impartial agent conducting the vote under those circumstances, but this is a different thing. This is a local union and their membership going into private meeting and determining within their policy framework as to whether or not they should take a strike vote. If the minister can't discern between those two situations, then heaven help us in the future in British Columbia.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 7, line 3. (See appendix.) It's a very simple amendment. The amendment is designed to make the section more evenhanded than it presently is.

Line 3 speaks about "a declaration by a trade-union." The amendment is to delete the words "a trade-union" and substitute instead "or on behalf of a trade-union or employer, " so the section will read: "... a declaration by or on behalf of a trade-union or employer...." The change has been made because subsequent to the introduction of the bill it has come to our attention that a declaration by an employer could have a similar consequence on trade and commerce. There is no wish on the part of the government to suggest that this particular section is directed only at trade unions.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 3382 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 77, Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 77 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 83.

PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION
FAIR WAGES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I stated my objections to the direction the minister is taking. I think the issue was mainly determined as to where the parties stand in the second reading debate on the principle of this bill. I see little point in dealing with the technical provisions of the section. I disagree with the direction, and that's that.

I do want to make this point, Mr. Chairman — and I raised it earlier — and that was whether or not the Minister of Labour is doing anything in the way of consultation with the parties over which he is bringing in these unexpected changes that are pretty far-reaching. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the minister has received a telegram from the Vancouver Island Building Trades Council pointing out that the minister had given that group his undertaking that no changes in this legislation were coming about this year. As a consequence, this bill descended on them like an unexpected hammer.

By golly, I don't think that's the way the minister is going to build the kind of trust that he says that he hopes to build in British Columbia. I think that when major changes are planned, he has an obligation to call in industry and to call in the trade unions and discuss with them in general terms the ideas he has and what the legislative direction might be.

As far as I can determine from the public utterances that I have witnessed in the papers by unions affected, and management groups, and certainly as a result of this telegram, the indication is that the minister has consulted with no one, that perhaps the backbenchers of his own group....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May we have a little order in committee, please?

MR. KING: I agree, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be nice to have order in this House this afternoon when we are discussing this bill, because I think, given a few months of the kind of legislative provision contained therein, we are going to have great disorder in the province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Revelstoke-Slocan for the opportunity to comment upon that concept. It is one which I hold. I would like to have had the opportunity of having greater discussions with unions and with management groups than was possible before bringing in this bill. He is wrong, however, when he suggests that the union organizations had my undertaking. I have the same telegram, plus also one from the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council. I looked at my correspondence and I indicated to them quite clearly that I would be happy to discuss with them proposed changes in this legislation. I regret that they only saw fit to communicate their concern about Bill 83 to me today, which is some 9 or 10 days after the bill was introduced.

However, with the legislation in place and functioning, I wish to assure the member and the committee, and those who are interested, that my office is available to them to discuss any

[ Page 3383 ]

consequences that they see and consider any adjustments that may be required in order to make this legislation function effectively.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Public Construction Fair Wages Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 59, Mr. Speaker.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 59, Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment to section l (b) standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on page 9 of the orders of the day of June is an amendment standing in my name which makes a minor change to this legislative monstrosity that's being presented to the House in committee stage.

My amendment takes out the words in the new 12A that is proposed which reads: "Notwithstanding any Act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine the organization of the Executive Government." Now this is a new principle that's being introduced to the legislative process in British Columbia and Canada, namely the principle — and I've certainly never submitted a bill of this kind to the Legislature — that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, may ignore an Act of the Legislature.

Now we have had some abominable examples of this same kind of legislation on the statute books from time to time, but I say it is abominable legislation. It is saying in effect that the cabinet is superior to the Legislature, and if the Legislature passes a bill saying, for example, that there shall be a pollution control board under such and such a minister, with such and such powers and they're set out, under this section by an order-in-council that Act of the Legislature can be repealed, amended or ignored. I say that's very bad creeping into the democratic process here.

It's one thing to pass legislation giving very broad powers for the cabinet to make orders-in-council pursuant to the legislation, but here is legislation giving power to the cabinet to ignore other Acts already passed by the Legislature. So you might have a situation where a judge is sitting in court and a lawyer quotes to him an Act of the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia and the counsel for the Crown, the Attorney-General's department, gets up on his feet and he says: "I'm sorry, Your Honour, that law has been repealed by an order-in-council of the cabinet."

Now that's the wrong way. That's putting the cabinet in supremacy over the Legislature. I say it is bad legislation, even though I quite agree with the Provincial Secretary. Some of these examples of this kind of derogation of the authority of parliament have crept into the statute books, and I know there are some precedents, none from the NDP government.

But I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, the amendment standing in my name that would eliminate those obnoxious words, "Notwithstanding any Act of the Legislature" the cabinet can overrule it. It's as simple as that. I so move. (See appendix.)

[ Page 3384 ]

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) by his amendment, Mr. Chairman, is asking the government to show that it is honest in its statements to the public. Both the Premier and the Provincial Secretary have stated, Mr. Chairman, that they do not in any way intend to override the traditional authority of the Legislature, but only desire a more efficient means of establishing and changing branches and departments and transferring funds and so on.

Now we don't appreciate any part of these amendments. We think it's laziness. We think it's a way to avoid the democratic process. I know it's late and I know there's nobody in the press gallery, but we have fought this thing down to the wire and we're going to fight it a bit further. Both the Premier and the Provincial Secretary have stated to the press, Mr. Chairman, that they don't want in any way to whittle away the power of the Legislative Assembly, and their opportunity now is to show that good faith — otherwise, it's bad faith. Otherwise, they didn't tell the whole truth to the public of British Columbia.

Part of the amendment, after each paragraph, is "providing that any order-in-council made under this section is ratified thereafter by motion at the next session of the Legislative Assembly." Okay, the opposition say, you say it's not going to whittle away the authority? We say: you want to be more efficient? We're saying: don't bring in a bill if you don't want to change a department or establish a department, but place a motion on the order paper that must be called and must be argued at the next session of the Legislature to ratify any order-in-council that was passed while the Legislature was not sitting.

If the Provincial Secretary is sincere in her statements to the public, she will accept these amendments without hesitation — without hesitation. If the Premier is being honest and straightforward with the people of British Columbia, how can he object to the amendment which says any action of the cabinet, in secret, should be ratified by motion at the next session of the assembly? Now we're calling your bluff, I say through Mr. Chairman to the Provincial Secretary. We're calling your bluff. Accept these amendments.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've had no response from the government. To keep the tone of the conversation very quiet, I would suggest that the first member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct in saying that this does not interfere with the power of the government to reorganize its departments under this Act. That doesn't mean we agree with the Act anyway, but it does mean that the Act would at least ensure legislative supremacy, which is our parliamentary democracy.

It simply says that you would then bring before the next succeeding session of the Legislature the orders-in-council that you have passed reorganizing government so they could be discussed and ratified by the next succeeding Legislature. That might not happen for the space of 10 or 12 months, but at least legislative control, to some degree, would be retained.

If the government does not accept these kinds of amendments, we would have to go out and tell the people of British Columbia that on the 30th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1976, at the hour of 6:27 o'clock, in the forenoon, the coalition government of the Province of British Columbia declared solemnly in this section that the cabinet was supreme to the elected representatives of the people.

MR. LAUK: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: And the John Hamptons, and all of the great fighters for parliamentary democracy through our long history, would surely turn in their graves if they thought that this was the result of their efforts, that the struggle for a Bill of Rights in 1689 in Great Britain, and even the struggle for Magna Carta in 1215 in Great Britain, had come to this — where the government casually, and without thinking about it, put into legislative form that the cabinet — this coalition cabinet — was superior to the elected representatives of the people. Are we to say that this passed without even response by the government when a reasonable alternative had been presented? Mr. Chairman, I urge the government to accept this amendment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the two members, first of all let me say that I'm surprised that the former Attorney-General, who has a law degree, is not familiar with the fact that "notwithstanding any Act" is in many Acts and statutes in this very Legislature. It's very common, and it has been common throughout Canada....

MR. MACDONALD: Not very common.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As it stands now, Mr. Chairman, this Legislature is not passing an Act that cannot be amended or cannot have amendments brought in in other years. If there is something that the Legislature does not agree with that the cabinet does within the year in changing one vote in one department — which is the purpose of the Act — to another responsibility of another minister, the voice of the Legislature is still paramount. It gives no

[ Page 3385 ]

authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council other than to transfer powers and duties. I'd like to reiterate that. And, Mr. Chairman, the whole discussion on this amendment is possibly out of order because it defeats the principle of the bill. I suggest to you that it is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have two amendments to section 1 — the one that appears first under the name of the Provincial Secretary, then we have the other one which is under the name of the first member for Vancouver East. It is not clear on the record here as to whether or not the first amendment was passed. Shall I ask the question again?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MR. LAUK: I said the amendment has passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I say that it's not clear at the table.

MR. LAUK: Oh, you mean it wasn't recorded?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. Therefore, I ask the question: shall the amendment under the name of the Provincial Secretary pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are rightfully on the second amendment.

MR. LAUK: What the Provincial Secretary is saying is a very dangerous thing. First of all, the Provincial Secretary, I should say, Mr. Chairman, is being remarkably uninformed, or badly informed, about the effects of these sections. I say remarkably because I know the source of her information and her advice — I am assuming that. I am rather startled that she would stand in this House and believe that that kind.... Well, I sincerely think she believes what she is saying; that's what the dangerous thing is.

All right. Why not accept an amendment such as the one put forward by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) ? You've told the people of British Columbia something that I assume was the truth. If you do not accept these amendments, then you've said it to them in some attempt to mislead them — if you don't accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary said that the government was not going to in any way whittle away the traditional authority of the Legislature. So what objection is there to the words "providing that any order-in-council made under this section is ratified thereafter by motion"? You don't even have to bring in a bill; just say: "Orders-in-council so-and-so should be ratified and approved pursuant to this section." Then we stand up and have a debate. If the opposition thinks that that government's restructuring, their transfer of powers and duties and so on, was a good thing, we can all vote for the motion and go on to the other business of the people. If we think it was a bad thing, the opposition can question, can stand up and argue against it. The Legislature will still have that residue of approval.

But if the minister refuses these amendments she is betraying a bad confidence in the words that she said to the people of this province, and what the Premier said to the people of this province when the said that this is in no way intended to detract from the authority of the Legislature. That's what the Premier said; that's what the Provincial Secretary said. If they don't accept these motions, they weren't telling the truth. If they don't accept these motions, they weren't telling the people of B.C. the truth. The motions are very simple; they say that we can establish, disestablish, transfer powers and duties, but we will come in with a motion for ratification at the next session of the Legislature.

By the very fact that the Provincial Secretary refused these amendments today, Mr. Chairman, we have a great deal to fear in British Columbia. If these people were honest about their intentions under this Act, they would accept these amendments. If they had no intention to do away with parliamentary democracy in British Columbia, they would accept these amendments. The very fact that the Provincial Secretary refuses these amendments is an indictment of their true intentions. It is a revelation. Make no mistake about it, they will use it and avoid the purview and the sunshine that this chamber can bring upon their actions behind closed doors.

We're going to vote on this now, Mr. Chairman, I say. We're going to vote on it now and this side is going to lose the vote. But let all British Columbians know that this party stood against the actions of this government, stood against their whittling away of the democratic process.

At a time when it's not receiving public attention, at a time when most of the members are out of the House, one of the most dangerous, historic statutes brought to this House is being voted on in committee. What a sad, pathetic thing that is! What an outrageous thing it is! And how easy! It should be demonstrated to the people of this province how easy it is to lose your democratic rights — I'm not saying one side is justified for being out of the House rather than the other, but look how easy it is to have your rights go down the chute! Very few people here; the Provincial Secretary waves her hand and says: "No, the amendments will not pass." It's an indictment on the

[ Page 3386 ]

statement of their true intentions.

It is an indictment on them — a condemnation of their true intentions. The very woman who went around this province talking about freedom and individual rights brings in a section that takes away the only opportunity the people of B.C. have to look at the back-room activities, the secret activities, of the cabinet. You say it's not true, madam. It is true. Those sections give you powers that no other cabinet in the country has — none.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to greatly prolong the debate but I think it is unfortunate when, in the later days of the session, the House has shown an atmosphere of harmony and cooperation which hadn't existed, let's face it, in the earlier weeks and even quite recently in this session. But this is the one bill which has provoked a great deal of concern within the Legislature and the opposition parties. If one reads the editorials of the newspapers one understands that there is some justification — whatever the intention of the government might have been — some concern that this bill does indeed erode that very fundamental principle that the Legislature should have the final authority, if not to ratify government actions, at least to discuss and debate them and express in the real democratic tradition the opposition of those parties who are not in government.

The particular aspect of the amendment which seems to me so reasonable is the fact that even if we left in the words "notwithstanding any Act," if even the second part of the amendment were accepted by the government, we would at least have that established, traditional right, as members of the opposition, to discuss and criticize and put forward, in what I hope should always be a rational and reasonable manner, the reasons for the opposition disagreeing with the action of government.

But under this subsection 12A of section 1, there is just no way at all that the opposition parties will be able to debate and criticize — constructively, I would hope — actions taken by the government, perhaps in contravention of existing Acts which had previously been passed by the Legislature.

Now I understand that there are some precedents where this phraseology is used, and I would just make the point that precedents by themselves are not necessarily positive reasons to support a principle; the precedent may be wrong. It's my understanding, and I'm no student — as many of the people in this House are — of the long history by which the democratic process has evolved, but I do know that somebody of the stature of Winston Churchill said that the democratic system is just a dreadful system but nobody has thought of anything better. I know that isn't even the language he used — he made it much more ornate and was much more articulate. I think that is essentially the spirit of this debate that we're having at this'moment, that the democratic system and the process by which it has evolved and been changed and improved and become increasingly respected over the centuries depends very much on that one central idea that the final place where laws are discussed, debated and voted on is in the Legislature, not in the cabinet chamber.

When the cabinet is given this authority in essence to disregard existing legislation, then that, in my view, completely and totally thwarts that very basic democratic concept that no person, no group of persons, no group of cabinet ministers, can disregard existing legislation. It throws the whole concept of the meaning of legislation into doubt and I, in keeping with other members who have spoken in this debate, realize that maybe this was not the intention of the government in bringing in this phraseology in section 1.

Mr. Chairman, the government has had an abundant opportunity, over many days, to listen not only to the opposition but to editorial comment in this province. Mr. Chairman, that editorial comment in many cases has recognized and supported one of the basic thrusts of this section, namely that authority and responsibility can be delegated by the cabinet from one department to another. I haven't read any editorial comment that basically disagrees with that.

As an individual myself who is eager to see government operate more efficiently and more speedily, I can agree that that is a very worthwhile goal in itself but, either wittingly or unwittingly, the government in this section has gone far beyond establishing that particular technique of reallocating departmental responsibilities, has gone far beyond that to the very heart of the democratic system — and, in fact, in going to the heart of the system, has eviscerated it by giving the cabinet in subsection 12A, in effect, carte blanche to disregard, ignore or do whatever it wants with existing legislation.

It was very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that at least the government has agreed to delete the last part of subsection 12B. I find that very interesting today when we were presented with the Supply Act, No. 2, 1976, because the last part of that Act states that no sum out of the supply "shall be issued or applied to any purpose other than the purposes for which they are appropriated."

If we can have that basic concept outlined in Supply Act, No. 2, recognized by the government as being vital to the way in which parliament functions, and thus have deleted this last sentence in subsection 12B, I'm just saying with the greatest of earnestness in this last final hour of this session of the Legislature, if the minister and the government can recognize that they were less than prudent in trying to have financial allocations deemed to have been

[ Page 3387 ]

spent in the way they were supposed to be spent, then, surely, here we are in an equally important principle in subsection 12A asking the government at this 11 the or 12th hour maybe to reconsider.

I can't personally see that the government has anything whatever to lose by deleting the words "notwithstanding any Act." I just can't see how the government can possibly lose by always agreeing to debate at a later date on an action taken by government. It's a little bit like innocence and guilt, Mr. Chairman. If a government or a group or an individual is innocent he should have no fear of entering into a wide-scale, open discussion with anybody or any group to explain why the action was taken and to let the merits of the action speak for themselves. That's the essential essence of our court system.

I sometimes read closely court cases and I am thinking of one that was recently reported in our local press where the system proved itself by giving the fullest opportunity to all parties concerned to present their case. Really, Mr. Chairman, if government is not only to set a leadership standard but is to meet the responsibility for which it is elected, surely the first and primary responsibility is at all times to take its stand on the basis of its actions and to justify its actions by submitting them to open scrutiny and debate — and where better to do that than in the Legislature.

The other unfortunate side of the coin is that any government which does not seem prepared to take that course leaves around it a cloud of uncertainty at the least, and maybe suspicion as to whether it feels it can justify its action in the cut and thrust of public debate in this Legislature.

I just feel that regardless of the political partisanship which has to prevail in our political system, here is an issue where we are talking about the very system itself. We are not talking about whether we've got a good Socred government and a bad NDP opposition, or vice versa. We are talking about the responsibility of any government in power to meet that first responsibility of its office, and that is to respect the legislation which is passed by this chamber.

No matter how the vote goes or how the legislation is passed, the first responsibility of any government is to show respect and recognition of the very fact that legislation passed by this assembly cannot unilaterally within a cabinet chamber or in any other location be denied, refuted, ignored or disobeyed.

We hear a great deal these days about law and order and the fact that if laws are not good and not right, as individuals we must strive to change these laws and make them better. Time and time again I find myself disagreeing with some of the laws of this province and this country. But one of the reasons I am here standing in this particular place at this point in time is to try and get some of that law changed, and time and time again I find that I speak to individuals who are equally disgruntled with some of the laws in our country and I give them that very direct and simple answer that the answer is not to flout the law, disregard it or deny that it exists. The answer is to take your part in public debate at whatever level you might choose and try to have the legislation changed.

I think in subsection 12A of section 1 of this bill the government, in effect, is saying to the people that while each one of you has to obey the laws of this province and respect them, even if you disagree with their content, we, as cabinet, set ourselves above that basic principle and we shall at our choosing decide to disregard certain legislation, if it suits our purpose.

You cannot have a double standard of that kind, Mr. Chairman. If individuals in society are dissatisfied with the laws and they find that in an Act such as this the government itself can disregard the law, then it's quite obvious that this is a very poor example to the citizenry of British Columbia.

I hear somebody saying "aye" which means that they're getting a little weary of me making the same point over and over again. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that probably in the whole of this session of this Legislature, there has not been one single point of principle more important than this one.

I agree with the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that it is a pity that we don't have many members in the House and the galleries are deserted and the public probably think that we're just continuing to waste taxpayers' money by talking too much. Someone else applauds as I say that. I'm not amused by that kind of applause or that kind of stupid interruption. This chamber, these 55 members and all that goes with it, Mr. Chairman, depend essentially on the final and ultimate authority which rests in this chamber — and the authority rests here, not in cabinet. The cabinet acts within the framework of legislation but this chamber passes the legislation, and within this bill that whole fundamental principle is being denied. If that is not a very important element for this present session that's in its dying minutes, I don't know what is, and I make no apology for speaking at some length and some repetition on this issue.

I would suggest that even this late in the debate and this late in the session the government would do nothing but gain by withdrawing these three words from this bill and demonstrating to the voters and the citizens of this province that they're quite willing at any time to have the easiest and widest and most complete scrutiny of anything that they wish to do which in their view is in the best interests of British Columbians.

Credibility and conviction, in my view, are always

[ Page 3388 ]

most readily established when you're willing to submit your credibility and your conviction to the widest possible scrutiny and debate. By this bill, the government is suggesting that it will not always do this and that it may, in fact, flout established legislation within the privilege of cabinet. I plead with the Premier even this late and even though he's still shaking his head and even although I obviously have not made my point, hard as I've tried to do it. I'm saying that even at this late hour this new government, which has so much potential, which has so much support because of its commitment on the election platform to be an open, democratic government, has sown some seeds of doubt about that commitment by this kind of phrase which is only three words.

I'm suggesting that even at this late, late hour the Premier of this province and his government could gain nothing but enormous respect from the people of the province if right now he would simply agree to withdraw the words "notwithstanding any Act" and agree that actions taken under this bill by his government would always be open to-scrutiny, debate and reappraisal by this Legislature. Because the Premier has said it himself and we all know that all of us as individuals make mistakes and if the government makes a mistake under this bill there's no provision to bring it back to the Legislature for correction.

On that kind of note of good will.... I'm not asking this for any political benefit, God knows — everybody knows what little political clout I carry in this chamber — but as an individual who hears daily about the feelings of many, many people in this province who want to see this government carry out and prove the commitment that it provided to the people last December. On behalf of these people, if no one else, I'm suggesting that by accepting this amendment the government would make nothing but gain both for the people of the province and its own political future.

Amendment negatived.

On section 1 as amended.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, after the eloquent plea made by the Conservative member, I don't know why I have the temerity to rise to try in my way to persuade the Premier and the Provincial Secretary to act on this bill in some way that will move towards preserving our democratic philosophies and principles and style of government.

If I were convinced that it were only the opposition who were reading something into this bill that was not intended by the minister I might be content to remain in my seat. But we have people like Christopher Dafoe in the Sun writing:

"The Government Reorganization Act may seem to be childishly simple and of lamblike innocence to those who have seen fit to introduce it. But it may eventually dawn on them that once again they have managed to overshoot the mark. As veteran practitioners of the politics of retreat, the Socreds may shortly realize the implications of what they are attempting to perpetuate and another dramatic climb-down should be in the cards."

In the Victoria Times, June 22:

"Traditionally, governments always needed the approval of the Legislature to establish new departments, but under Bill 59 there will be no more debate in the Legislature on government reorganization. Certainly it's more efficient and businesslike to conduct the province's affairs in this way. Premier Bill Bennett must think he is only streamlining things with Bill 59. By that token, too, the Legislature must be a tiresome inconvenience for the government which only slows the progress of the action-oriented doers in the cabinet. Those in the cabinet, ex-Liberals too, should go back and reread some of their old speeches and election campaign literature. Listen to the critics on this one point and amend Bill 59. The first part of it is bad law."

So says the Times.

The other day I came into my office and found on my desk a copy of a petition signed by some 175 people, together with letters addressed to the Premier and the Provincial Secretary asking the government to withdraw Bill 59. Most of those people are from my own constituency. I assume that's why I was left a copy of that petition.

I have sat here hoping that the Provincial Secretary would accept the amendment moved by the first member for Vancouver East. But when she was not prepared to accept it, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why she is insisting on bringing in this whole first section when the second section provides what she says she requires it, for. I would urge and beg — in fact, I would plead with the Provincial Secretary — to withdraw that first part, to hoist it till the fall session, to take time to review it. The second section will provide what that minister says she requires. That's all that's needed at this point in time. I would urge her to withdraw that section even at this late hour. We would gladly pass the second section providing the reorganization that has been established.

This morning we passed Bill 85, the supply Act. section 4 says: "No sum out of.the supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose other than the purposes for which they are...set out in the Schedules." The schedules list the ministers. If this Act goes ahead and changes are made, that is a piece of nonsense that we passed this morning. It has no bearing on what is going to happen if this bill is used to its full intent. Now if the minister doesn't require

[ Page 3389 ]

that power, doesn't want to do that — if she wants to keep it the way it is in the supply Act we passed this morning — then withdraw the first part of this Act and we will gladly pass the second part, Mr. Chairman. I would urge her to take that action.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have a proposed amendment following section 9 to be known as section 10, adding at the end the following section: "This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation." (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 59, Government Reorganization Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Now, with leave.

Leave granted.

Bill 59, Government Reorganization Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 14

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 64.

PUBLIC SERVICE
BENEFIT PLANS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

Bill 64, Public Service Benefit Plans Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: By leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3390 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 64 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 72.

MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: 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 72, Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to explain this clause.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The object of this clause Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, is exactly this: the hit-and-run victim in the province of British Columbia will be able to recover from the insurance corporation, providing he is a resident of this province or happens to be from an area that has a comparable type of coverage.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 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 61, Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 23.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
BUILDINGS CORPORATION ACT

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very briefly I just want to repeat the fact that I believe the voters of British Columbia voted this party into power to create less government, not more government. This is the creation of one more Crown corporation for the purpose of acquiring land and buildings to further enlarge the property acquisition of this government. I think that is a complete contradiction of one of the basic principles on which this party went to the electorate, and I see no reason why we have to have a separate Crown corporation to do what in effect I believe the Department of Public Works and the Department of Highways together can do without setting up just one more Crown corporation as is defined in section 2. I very much oppose section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Hear, hear!

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the most repulsive section of this particular bill. I think it could be called the "déjà vu" section. It is a term we use in psychiatry which relates to something which you're sure you've seen before which you can't quite remember just exactly where and when you did see it before. But I know where I saw it before. I saw it in the Land Commission Act, Bill 42, that was brought in by the NDP government, only this one is much worse, because it has that terrible word in it — "expropriation."

I recall the vehemence with which the present government, when in opposition, railed against the

[ Page 3391 ]

supposed power in Bill 42 in that the power appeared to give the government of the day a great deal of authority to acquire, by one means or another, including expropriation, an individual's land or property. Subsequent debate at great length showed that "otherwise acquire" did not mean expropriation. I won't belabour that argument, Mr. Chairman; I simply refer to it as having been established very clearly in debate that the phrase "otherwise acquire" does not mean expropriation.

So a great deal of the vehemence with which the Social Credit Party in opposition opposed Bill 42 sounds very hollow when we see right here not only a further extension of big government through a new Crown corporation, but in subsection 2(a) of this bill, we read: "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."

Mr. Chairman, I just can't believe this of a government which placed so much of its policy in the recent provincial election last December on the rights of the individual and a commitment to protect the freedom and rights of the individual, particularly in the face of big government, and also promised that a Social Credit government would, in fact, take steps not only to protect the freedoms and rights of the individual, but to reduce the size of government. Now it's quite true that they are on a path to reduce the size of the civil service, and I am in agreement with that, but certainly when the Social Credit Party went to the electorate last December, they did not in any way imply that at the very first session of their government tenure they would bring in a bill which, in effect, sets up a Crown corporation under the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) which gives that minister, through the Crown corporation, the power to expropriate the property of an individual if, in fact, the Minister of Public Works, or this corporation, feels that it needs that property in which to carry on government business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The language is very clear. It is not as though we have to have a long debate like we did on Bill 42 as to what the meaning of the words "otherwise acquire" is. That was a long, legalistic debate we had. On this bill, Mr. Chairman, the word "expropriation" is right out there in the open. There's no mistake as to the fact that this bill gives the new Crown corporation the power to expropriate your home or my home, your business or my business, if it decides, in its wisdom or otherwise, that it wants that particular property in which to conduct government business.

I don't believe that was why this party was elected to power. This party appealed very strongly and repetitively to the voters of British Columbia with very much a contradictory purpose to the government that was then in power — namely, that the NDP wanted this kind of legislation, wanted this kind of power, to expropriate property and acquire what an individual would regard as his castle or his home. So it's a very unusual situation that in this bill we see the government doing the very thing that it promised it would correct if elected. It's an unbelievable 180-degree move from one of the central principles that it espoused during the election campaign last December.

Maybe there's some significance in the fact that this is the very last bill of this whole session that we are debating. I think it should be the last post, not the last bill, that we are talking about because this government, in this bill, has really betrayed one very fundamental promise that it made to the electors in December last year. That promise was first of all that it would not promote big government, and it would protect the rights and freedoms of the individual. Where a bill, within six months or so, is presented at the very first session completely denying that kind of commitment, I think that is certainly most regrettable if not, frankly, Mr. Chairman, less than honest.

In those terms, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 4(2)(a), that in line one we delete the word "expropriation." I so move.

On the amendment.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): The government doesn't accept this amendment. I would like to say that it is the intent of this section 4 to consider this purely as a last means of protecting the public interest when all normal negotiating methods fail. It is the same principle used by other government departments, and further protection of the private interest is afforded by this power only being exercised by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is not exercised by the individual minister.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment but I think for a different reason. I believe that the government should have the power of expropriation, and whether it's handled wisely or not can be decided by the people at election time. The reason why I support the amendment is that I'm sorry to see that the Highway Act expropriation powers, and Public Works, are being used in this bill. I would like to see a bill come into this House that is a new bill on expropriation which has some justice and equality to it.

[ Page 3392 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why didn't you do it?

MR. LEA: We were getting around to that. We couldn't do it all, and we should have. There's no doubt about it. I apologize; we should have done it. But the thing is, I would like to know whether the government is planning on bringing in an expropriation bill that will be a fair bill, because right now I know that under the Highway Act if you are going to expropriate property and you are going through a section of town, for instance, that's in the lowest socio-economic grouping and you buy their houses and their property at market value they have a very difficult time relocating on the kind of money that they can realize — and, if you remember, they didn't want to sell in the first place.

But if you go through another part of town where it's a fairly successful part of town in terms of the people who live there, the property prices and the homes, it is easier for them with the market price they're paid to move somewhere else. It's easier for them. It's very difficult for people in the lower socio-economic housing areas to move on the price that they're paid.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right, Bob. So bring in an expropriation bill next session that is fair and that all government departments and Crown organizations will have to use when they're dealing with the public. I would think that that should be a priority item for your government next time.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the minister, with some precision, has stated the reverse of what is the fact on the question of whether or not the corporation can expropriate or whether it has to be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The minister said that it must be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but the plain language of this Act states that "In addition to its powers under this or any other Act the corporation, for the purposes of this Act, may, in its own name.... . "

MR. WALLACE: "In its own name" — what does that say?

MR. GIBSON: "...acquire land and buildings by purchase, lease, exchange, expropriation, or otherwise." Then later on at the end of this section, subsection (3): "The provisions of the Department of Highways and Public Works Act respecting expropriation apply, with the necessary changes and insofar as they are applicable, to expropriation by the corporation" — not by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, Mr. Chairman, but by the corporation.

So I suggest that the minister has stated to this House something that is not a fact, and I would ask him to withdraw that in the interests of clarification.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: What are the exact facts of the case? Is the expropriation to be by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or can it be done by the corporation itself as the wording of the Act here indicates?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm advised that it only can be done by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's not what the Act says. It says: "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, Mr. Chairman, if the minister really means that only the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can do it, he had better introduce an amendment right now, because that's not what the law as introduced to this Legislature says. Obviously a person has to oppose the suggestion that a corporation which is not of the stature of the cabinet and which is composed of members of the executive council and members of the public service in terms of the board of directors can exercise the full powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under other Acts. That's completely inadmissible under our system of government.

Expropriation is an extraordinarily important power, and I would suggest that the minister should not in any case delegate that and the Legislature should not delegate it. I would ask the minister to withdraw this section or amend it as may be necessary to remove the exercise of the expropriation power by other than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

HON. MR. FRASER: We won't proceed to that because going ahead here under section 4(3) the provision is in there: "...the Department of Highways and Public Works Act respecting expropriation apply, with the necessary changes and insofar as they are applicable, to expropriation by the corporation." In other words, that provides for order by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of that subsection. I've already read it out and the operative words are the final five words: "to expropriation by the corporation." In other words, it is not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that's expropriating.

[ Page 3393 ]

It's the corporation that's expropriating. The corporation is given that power under the initial part of the section and the power is nowhere circumscribed. There are nowhere procedures or appeals or anything of that nature spelled out. Rather this enormous power of expropriation is given to a small group of people who are not responsible to the Legislature in the way that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is and in the way that everybody who should have the power of expropriation should be.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Minister, if you think I'm wrong, then you stand up and tell me where I'm wrong. But the language is very plain. "The corporation...may in its own name" expropriate and "expropriation by the corporation." There it is.

HON. MR. FRASER: It must have the permission of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. GIBSON: Where does it say that?

HON. MR. FRASER: In the Highways and Public Works Act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, would it not make a lot of sense if the relevant part of the section in subsection (3) about the provisions of the Department of Highways and Public Works Act respecting expropriation applied...? Why then in subsection (2) do we need the phrase "in its own name," and would the minister consider amending the bill by deleting the four words "in its own name"? It seems to me it's saying two contradictory things in the same section. In subsection (2) it is saying that the corporation in its own name may expropriate. In subsection (3) it says that the provisions of another Act apply, which means that only the cabinet can approve it. How can we have two contradictory techniques within the same section? Therefore I just ask, would the minister consider deleting the four words "in its own name" from subsection (2) ?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to the minister why this corporation doesn't require expropriation powers. If you look at section 14, which we have yet to consider, it notes that: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that the interest of the Crown in any land or building, together with furnishings, equipment and other movable or immovable property on or in it, be transferred to the corporation." In other words, anything that the Crown owns it may transfer to the corporation.

Now the Crown already has the power to expropriate under law that has been carefully passed, under law which regulates the power of expropriation. If the Crown requires lands or any other items for this corporation — whose name should be changed, in any event — the Crown can expropriate under existing powers and transfer them. There's no need for new powers to be given to this corporation — powers which would be uncontrolled by the usual procedures, which I think this Legislature must oppose.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 25

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

On section 4.

MR. WALLACE: In further reference to section 4, there is another part of this section, Mr. Chairman, which is just out-and-out socialism. I'm referring to subsection (e), which states that the corporation can "acquire or construct land and buildings which provide more accommodation than is required for its purposes at the time, or which include premises suitable for commercial use and lease any such accommodation or premises to any public or private body or person."

That's this government going into real estate, Mr. Chairman. When I think of how the Premier railed from this side of the House as the Leader of the Official Opposition about all the empty space which

[ Page 3394 ]

the NDP government had rented and leased which it didn't require at that time and now we have them writing into government legislation the power to do the very same thing!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It is almost impossible to hear the debate. Would you please afford the man the courtesies of the House?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your protection. I have no wish to go on at any great length, but I think that this bill, being finally dealt with as the very last piece of legislation in this session, is very symbolic in my view, inasmuch as the government in this very last bill to be passed — although there may be other resolutions or pieces of business — most clearly represents some of the very issues and principles that this government fought tenaciously when it was in opposition. We've already talked about the battle over expropriation in Bill 42 ...

MR. LEA: Anybody can change his mind. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Nobody's perfect.

MR. WALLACE: ...but now we have the government in this subsection wanting to acquire buildings that it doesn't really require, and also wanting to enter into the real estate business by competing with private enterprise, to lease out government buildings. It's a delightful turnaround of 180 degrees. Mr. Chairman, a very serious note has been passed to me, and it convinces me that I should sit down very quickly.

I think the House deserves the courtesy of sharing the contents of this note with me. The author is the former Labour minister, now the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . He informs me: "If you pan the socialists like that again, I shall deposit saltpetre in your oatmeal." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Tell him it was too late. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, for a member who has tried to bring some moderation to debate and who has just been accused across the floor of being a savage ...

AN HON. MEMBER: A thilly thavage.

MR. WALLACE: ...I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just one word. At this point I would like to say: a pox on both your houses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: There is no question that the government, when they are building buildings, have to build buildings with an eye to the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: But then on the other hand, now they are government.... They feel that way, but it wasn't long ago that they were criticizing the old government for making any kind of adjustments that would improve their political position. It's a very strange world we live in at quarter to eight on the last day of this session, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say: a pox on both your houses — all of you Conservatives!

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

NAYS — 37

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

MR. KING: In order to assist the chairman in keeping a bit more order in the House, I would suggest that the Premier loan the cabinet shredder to the press gallery so that the noise of ripping paper wouldn't be so loud. (Laughter.)

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

[ Page 3395 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say in the twilight hours of this session that we've never before in the brosta rogaboff....

AN HON. MEMBER: Wozzat?

MR. LAUK: This committee in the pratix rauwt in the democratic pratition argle-bargle potter reesters.... (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: I beg your pardon?

MR. LAUK: I'd like to say daidest graidest that the cabinet together was probiz sorberin....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've won us over!

MR. LAUK: In consulting the authorities I'm convinced that ruz scerobororisk....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: I forgot to wish you an April Fool.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that the first member for Vancouver Centre never made more sense. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on a slightly serious note, this section notes among other things that the Public Service Act does not apply to the officers and employees of the corporation and I think that's entirely wrong. I think this gives the corporation the ability to hire and fire without any of the protections of the Public Service Act. I would move, therefore, that in subsection 4 the words "does not apply" be deleted and "applies" be substituted.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. BARBER: This unfortunate bill contains nowhere any provision whatever for public tenders, and for the public opening of same. This bill permits the corporation to hire at will any friend of that coalition and to do it behind closed doors with no public disclosure of any sort. Nowhere in this bill is there any provision whatever for public tender if the corporation should choose to go outside its own agency in the construction of public works in British Columbia.

Section 7 refers to financial administration and appears to be the appropriate place to move an amendment. I would like to ask, though, whether or not the minister can provide any satisfactory explanation as to why we find nowhere in this bill — and nowhere in section 7 which is that dealing with financial administration — any commitment on the part of that coalition to go to tenders publicly. Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that they would prefer to do business privately with the friends and backers and political supporters of that coalition? Is it possible that this is why we see nowhere in the bill at all any reference to public bids and tenders?

It disturbs me very much that such an omission should be self-evident in a close reading of this bill. Therefore I move an amendment to section 7 to be known as subsection 10. The amendment reads: "Bids shall be required for all projects not undertaken by the corporation itself and all tenders shall be opened in public."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment, please, while we take at look at the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it appears that the amendment is not in order because it introduces a new principle into the bill without Crown authority and therefore would be clearly out of order.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, if in fact it is the prerogative of the Crown rather than of a private member to introduce such an amendment, I wonder if the minister would be so good, and his government so open, as to introduce the amendment himself to allow for public bids and tenders and the opening of same in public. Can you have any conceivable opposition to doing your business in public? Will the minister introduce the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. FRASER: The answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the absence of Crown assent, the amendment is out of order.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

[ Page 3396 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this section provides that this corporation, which will own an enormous amount of property in British Columbia, only may pay taxes — it doesn't say that it has to pay taxes. This is very disturbing to me, Mr. Chairman, because there should be some indication as to, if not the necessity — because a private member can't move that — then the desirability of the corporation paying taxes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Let me move my amendment, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: You're going to vote for it, aren't you, Sam?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this corporation will own buildings around this province which should pay hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of dollars a year in taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially in the capital city.

MR. LAUK: Sam promised.

MR. GIBSON: Especially in the capital city — that's right, Mr. Member. I know that the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) will support this principle; I only hope that hon. first member (Mr. Bawlf) will stand up and vote for this amendment that I am about to move. Now, Mr. Chairman, what I would really like to do is move that the word "may" be changed to "shall, " but I know that that's out of order. It's out of order under section 67. Therefore, I would propose to move that the word "may" be changed to "really should." (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, if I might just comment on the admissibility of this....

Interjections.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): It's probably your best contribution this session.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Member. It's a landmark in jurisprudence in this House if it's admissible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I want to thank the member for giving advance notice of the amendment. Perhaps you wish to speak to it a little further.

MR. GIBSON: Well, if you want to rule it in order, I don't need to. (Laughter.) Otherwise, yes, I do have something to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is clearly out of order in that it is vague, it is trifling and it is meaningless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that is very precise — it says they really should do something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The amendment is out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I'm crushed, I'm upset.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the inadmissibility of the amendment, I feel that this is a vital section in the bill which, again, frustrates and thwarts one of the points that was stressed time and time again in the recent election campaign, particularly in the city of Victoria where the government owns a great deal of property....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The government, particularly in the capital city, owns a great deal of property and, as the first member for Victoria has so frequently said, there is tremendous need to treat the Corporation of the City of Victoria equally with other property owners. There's every reason why there should not be this option of paying a grant in lieu of taxes. Government property should be assessed like any other, and pay taxes like any other property owners.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The fact that the word is "may" clearly leaves an option to this Crown corporation. I would hope that, if nothing else, the first member for Victoria would at least give us in the opposition his assurance that he is still there in the caucus of the Social Credit government fighting to have the government not just say that maybe they will pay taxes but, in fact, they shall pay taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has no influence.

HON. MR. FRASER: On the subject of taxes being paid by the provincial government, it is under active review.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

[ Page 3397 ]

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the title is clearly unacceptable.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: The title is misleading. The title confuses the public. The title gives them a false and inaccurate impression of the real purposes of this corporation. Because the government has refused to move my amendment to do its business in public, to call for tenders in public through advertising in the proper and traditional way, because they have refused to open those public tenders in public, it's clear that there are other and more suspicious motivations behind this corporation. Many people more cynical than I would suggest that this corporation is able to do its business in private in order that that coalition can pay off its friends in private.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. BARBER: I move an amendment to the title. I amend as follows: "that the title be deleted and the more accurate, honest, straightforward and true title be substituted therefore — the British Columbia Porkbarrel Corporation Act."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment until we can determine if it is in order.

Hon. Member, as a new member of the House, perhaps it should be drawn to your attention that perhaps the best way to register your objection to the title would be to vote against the title when it is called for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: But that's not the real reason; the real reason is this.

MR. BARBER: The real reason for what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready? The title as you have amended it here is a complete negation of the original title; it's not a restatement of the title. As such, the end result is a complete negation of the intent of the purpose of the original title. As such it is out of order.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, may I reply very briefly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order.

MR. BARBER: It is totally consistent with the purposes of the bill to name it as I have suggested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, do you have a copy of May, 19th edition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry.

MR. LAUK: Well, it says.... (Laughter.)

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 2

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I believe the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. I would just ask you to remain in your seats and be at ease for a few moments until the Lieutenant-Governor can attend the House.

[ Page 3398 ]

Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching. Would all the members please rise?

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

DEPUTY CLERK:

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act

British Columbia Ferry Authority Corporation Act

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1976

Water Amendment Act, 1976

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act

Land Amendment Act, 1976

Mineral Amendment Act, 1976

Judicial Review Procedure Act

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act

Home Purchase Assistance Act

Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster Incorporation Act

British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976

Sheriffs Act

Mineral Resource Tax Act

Government Reorganization Act

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1976

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1976

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1976

Public Service Benefit Plans Act

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2)

Miscellaneous Statutes (Court Rules) Amendment Act, 1976

Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976

Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976

Members of the Legislative Assembly

Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976

Companies Amendment Act, 1976

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3)

Public Service Act

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1976

Public Construction Fair Wages Act Supply Act, No. 2,1976

CLERK: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's Loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to those bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Williams files answers to questions 55, 58 and 61. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned at that time. In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:26 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 3350:

57 The Hon. T. M. Waterland to move in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 57) intituled Mineral Resources Tax Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, in the definition of "fiscal year, " line 3: By inserting "or, where the term is used with reference to the Mining Tax Act, means fiscal year as defined in that Act" after "this Act".

[ Page 3399 ]

Section 1, in the definition of "mine, " line 1: By inserting "or has been" after "mineral is".

Section 1, in the definition of "operator":

(a) Line 1: By inserting "or was" after "is".

(b) Line 2: By deleting "the right" and substituting "a right".

Section 2 (1), line 1: By inserting "during the fiscal year" after "derived".

Section 2 (1 ), lines 2 and 3: By deleting "during the fiscal year".

Section 3 (3), lines 3 and 4: By deleting "co-owner" and substituting "cooperator" in both places.

Section 5 (1):

(a) Line 4: By deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a) .

(b) Line 6: By adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (b) in place of the period.

(c) By adding the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

"(c) the fiscal year of the operator is his taxation year."

Section 5 (2) (a), lines I and 2: By deleting "were incurred in the fiscal year and which".

Section 5 (2) (a) (i), line 1: By inserting "amounts deductible under" before 4 "sections".

Section 5 (2) (c) (ii):

(a) Line 2: By deleting "in the Province".

(b) Line 3: By insertion, "in the Province" after "minerals".

Section 5 (2) (c) (in):

(a) Line 1: By deleting "in the Province".

(b) Line 2: By inserting "in the Province" after "minerals".

Section 5 (2) (d) (ii):

(a) Line 1: By deleting "in the Province".

(b) Line 2: By inserting "in the Province" after "minerals' .

Section 5 (4), line 1: By inserting "expense" after "interest".

Section 6 (1 ), line 3: By inserting "at the end of the fiscal year" after "capital cost".

Section 21, line 3: By deleting "at any time".

The following amendments are referred to on page 3373 et seq.:

28 Mr. Barnes to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act to amend as follows:

Section 7, page 3, to add the following: After the word affiliations "or place of residence."

28 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act to amend as follows:

Section 16, subsection (7), line 5: By adding at the end:

"after the date of an assignment under subsection (2) or an order under subsection (4), less such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations".

Section 22, line 6: By deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:

"(d) the Vancouver Resources Board or any other regional or community resources board".

Section 25, line 3: By deleting "or social services".

Section 25: By inserting after subsection (2) the following as subsection (2a):

"(2a) Where an individual is dissatisfied with a decision made under this Act or the regulations respecting the refusal, discontinuance, or reduction of social services to him or to his dependents, he may appeal the decision to a tribunal to be established and conducted in accordance with the regulations."

Section 25, subsection (3), line 3: By inserting "or cancel" after "vary".

[ Page 3400 ]

The following amendments are referred to on page 3383:

59 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 59) intituled Government Reorganization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1 (b), lines 18 and 19: By deleting the words "and shall be conclusively deemed to have been authorized by the Legislature to be so paid and applied."

59 Mr. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 59) intituled Government Reorganization Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1 (b) in 12A, line 1: By deleting "Notwithstanding any Act" and by inserting after 12A (c) "providing that any Order in Council made under this section is ratified thereafter by motion at the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

And in 12B, line 9: After the word "functions", insert "providing that any Order in Council made under this section 1s ratified thereafter by motion at the next session of the Legislative Assembly."

The following amendment is referred to on page 3389:

64 The Hon. Grace McCarthy to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 64) intituled Public Service Benefit Plans Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1: Renumber as subsection (1) and add the following subsection:

"(2) For the purposes of this Act 'employee' includes a Provincial judge, a coroner, or other person appointed to a position or office to which is attached a salary payable by the Crown in right of the Province."

The following amendment is referred to on page 3391:

23 Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 23) intituled B.C. Buildings Corporation Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4 (2) (a), line 1: Delete the word "expropriation".

Delete section 4 (2) (e) .

68 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions: 

1. Of the traffic originated on the British Columbia Railway (a) what amount, by dollar value of revenue, is destined to Canadian points; (b) what amount, by tonnage, is destined to Canadian points; (c) what amount, by dollar value of revenue, is destined to overseas points; (d) what amount, by tonnage, is destined to overseas points; (e) what amount, by dollar value of revenue, is destined to United States points west of the Mississippi; (f) what amount, by tonnage, is destined to United States points west of the Mississippi; (g) what amount, by dollar value of revenue, is destined to United States points east of the Mississippi; and (h) what amount, by tonnage, is destined to United States points east of the Mississippi?

2. Of the United States destined traffic east of the Mississippi, what percentage, by tonnage, travels east-bound on one of the Canadian national railways, and what percentage is routed east-bound via the United States?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

[ Page 3401 ]

"1. (a) $31,552,534; (b) 4,596,396 tons; (c) $6,439,176; (d) 920,840 tons; (e), (f), (g), and (h) these figures not maintained on a regional basis.

"2. These figures not maintained on a regional basis by tonnage."

28 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

1. Have any consultants been hired by the Government, Crown agencies, Crown corporations, or any authority or business in which the Government holds direct or indirect control since December 23, 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what are the names, qualifications, and remuneration if any, being paid to the consultants?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy stated that, in her opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that she had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

46 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary (responsible for the Queen's Printer) the following question:

With regard to the paper use by Government departments, are there any guidelines concerning (a) the general reduction of paper use, (b) the use and purchase of recycled paper, and (c) the recycling of Government waste paper?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"(a) This is controlled through departmental estimates, (b) no, and (c) recycling of Government waste paper is handled through the Department of Public Works."

69 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Transport and Communications the following questions:

1. In regard to statistics relating to ferry usage by trailers, buses, campers, and cars, what are the total numbers of each of these vehicles recorded as using B.C. Ferries (a) for the period June 1 to June 15, 1975, and (b) for the period June 1 to June 15, 1976?

2. In regard to statistics relating to ferry usage by foot passengers, what is the total number of foot passengers using B.C. Ferries (a) for the period June 1 to June 15, 1975, and (b) for the period June 1 to June 15, 1976?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

60 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

With reference to private insurance companies licensed to sell automobile insurance in British Columbia —

1. How many companies are licensed?

2. In the case of each company. what is the name of the company and in what country is the controlling interest held?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"1. Licensed insurance companies at May 1, 1976, total 151."

[ Page 3402 ]

2. The Hon. P. L. McGeer stated that, in his opinion, the reply should be in the form of a Return and that he had no objection to laying such Return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.

55 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following questions:

With reference to Workers' Compensation claims before boards of review in 1975 and 1976 to date-

1. How many cases were placed before boards of review in each year?

2. How many recommendations of the boards were confirmed by the Compensation Board in each year?

3. How many recommendations of the boards were rejected by the Compensation Board in each year?

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

"l. Cases placed before the boards of review confirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board in each year: 1975, 1,583; 1976 (January to April), 618.

"2. Recommendations of the boards of review confirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board in each year: 1975, 1,212; 1976 (January to April), 367.

"3. Recommendations of the boards of review rejected by the Board: 1975, 17; 1976 (January to April), 19.

"The numbers contained in No. 2 are not necessarily relevant to the numbers in No. 1, as one group refers to decisions and the other refers to numbers of claims delivered to the boards of review.

"The use of the word 'confirmed' in the question is misleading, as many of the cases are never referred to or seen by the Board. It cannot be assumed that when a decision is reversed by the Board that the decision of the board of review was in favour of the worker."

58 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following questions —

1. During the period April 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975, what assignments were given by the Minister of Labour to Clive McKee?

2. What is the amount of payment made, or to be made, to Mr. McKee in respect of these services?

3. For the period January 1, 1976, to March 31, 1976, what assignments were given by the Minister of Labour to Clive McKee?

4. What is the estimated cost to the Government for these services?

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

"l. During the period April 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975, the following assignments were given to Clive McKee by the Minister of Labour:

(a) Industrial Inquiry Commission in the matter of a dispute between British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 258.

(b) Special Officer in the matter of a dispute between the Construction Labour Relations Association and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices and Pipe Fitting Industry, Local 170.

(c) Industrial Inquiry Commission in the matter of a dispute between the Construction Labour Relations Association of British Columbia and other firms engaged in the construction industry and certain trade-unions including the Joint Bargaining Trades Council, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and other trade-unions.

(d) Special Officer in the matter of a dispute between British Columbia Railway and those certified unions working for the railroad.

[ Page 3403 ]

(e) Industrial Inquiry Commission in the matter of a dispute between Food Industry Labour Relations Council and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1518; Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Local 212; and Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Local 468.

(f) Industrial Inquiry Commission in the extension and continuation of the above dispute.

"2. The amount of payment to Mr. McKee in respect of these services is $53,187.55, broken down as follows: Fees, $42,800; expenses, $10,387.55; total fees and expenses, $53,187.55.

"3. During the period January 1, 1976, to March 31, 1976, the following assignment was given to Clive McKee by the Minister of Labour: Industrial Inquiry Commission in the matter of a dispute between the Food Industry Labour Council of British Columbia and the Retail Clerks Union, Local 1518; and the Canadian Food and Allied Workers, Local 212; and the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, Local 468.

"4. The cost to the Government of British Columbia for these services is $10,336.73, broken down as follows: Fees, $7,425; expenses, $2,911.73; total fees and expenses, $10,336.73."

61 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following questions:

With regard to requests made to the Department of Labour by the Human Rights Branch to hold hearings in cases of alleged discrimination where such hearings have been deemed advisable by the Human Rights Branch—

1. How many such requests have been made since January 1, 1976?

2. How many such requests have been approved since January 1, 1976?

3. How many requests have been denied since January 1, 1976?

4. Where the requests have been denied, what are the reasons for such denial?

5. How many requests are presently under consideration by the Department of Labour?

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

"Under the Human Rights Code of British Columbia, the Director of the Human Rights Branch is obliged to inquire into, investigate, and endeavour to effect settlements of alleged discriminations or contraventions of the Code. Where the Director is unable to settle an allegation or is of the opinion that an allegation will not be settled, the Director is obliged to report thereon to the Minister of Labour. The Code does not contemplate a procedure for the making of 'requests' for the holding of hearings. It is the practice for the Minister of Labour to exercise the discretion extended to him under the Code to do so following consultation with the Director and officials of the Department of Labour.

"During the period from January 1, 1976, the Director reported 10 cases that could not or might not be settled. Boards of Inquiry were appointed by the Minister of Labour in five cases. Boards of Inquiry were not appointed in three cases, as the circumstances did not disclose discrimination within the scope of the Code. Two cases are presently under consideration."

67 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. Did any employable persons receive social assistance in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and to date in 1976?

[ Page 3404 ]

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, what A, ere the totals in each year on a monthly basis?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Totals in each year on a monthly basis were: