[ Page 4625 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Selection of hospitality co-ordinator. Mrs. Dailly –– 4625

Increase in mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Levi –– 4625

Possible BCGEU strike. Mr. Wallace –– 4625

GAIN benefits to seniors. Ms. Brown –– 4626

Secret agriculture committee meeting. Mr. Gibson –– 4626

Pharmacare expenditures. Mr. Stupich –– 4627

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 81) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4628

Mr. Levi –– 4630

Mr. Gibson –– 4632

Mr. Wallace –– 4633

Mr. Macconald 4635

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4636

Companies Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 49) Second reading.

I-Ion. Mr. Mair –– 4638

Mr. Levi –– 4640

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4642

Mineral Act (Bill 73) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4642

Mr. Lea –– 4642

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4643

Heritage Conservation Act (Bill 77) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4643

Mr. Nicolson –– 4644

Mr. Wallace –– 4646

Mr. Lauk –– 4647

Mrs. Jordan –– 4648

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4650

Statistics Act (Bill 32) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 4651

On section 7.

Mr. Lank –– 4652

On the amendment to section 7.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4653

Mr. Barrett –– 4653

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4656

Mr. Nicolson –– 4656

Mr. Lea ... –– 4657

Mr. Gibson –– 4658

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 4658

Mr. Barrett –– 4658

Mr. Nicolson –– 4659

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, visiting with us today we have Captain and Mrs. Fred Davies who are constituents of mine in Oak Bay. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate A f fairs): Mr. Speaker, from the constituency of Kamloops a good friend of mine, Mr. Ian Allan, is with us and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the House today the president of our Mackenzie NDP riding association as well as a member of our provincial executive, Mrs. Pat Blake, along with her lovely daughter. Will you please join me in welcoming them?

Oral questions.

SELECTION OF HOSPITALITY CO-ORDINATOR

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Could the minister outline to the House the selection process that was involved in the appointment of the hospitality co-ordinator for the hospitality training programme?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Burnaby North. The hospitality course is one that was started in the spring of this year through Tourism British Columbia. It had about seven classes in the interior as a pilot project. There was at that time an overview made of the programme, and there were some things in the programme that we felt could and should be corrected.

With the benefit of that advice from different people who looked into the programme, our ministry appointed a consultant who has had some background in personnel training, et cetera, Mrs. Helen Beirnes, for a three-month contract period. The selection was done through the Deputy Minister of Travel Industry in the province. We look forward to launching the programme in the latter part of September, and we think that it will be a very, very highly recommended course when it is all tidied up after the initial start of the spring programme.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary to that, directly to the Provincial Secretary, are we to assume that she no longer intends to use the Public Service Commission for any appointments to her ministry?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think that's an unfair question because this appointment is for a three-month time; it's a short-term contract.

During the term of this government and through previous governments - two that I am aware of -there have been contract appointments. Public service appointments, of course, go through the ordinary channels, and we have had many in the ministry in the past year and a half.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, could the Provincial Secretary tell us, as the new hospitality co-ordinator did not seem to know. . ? She's told us that the length of the appointment, I understand, is three months. That was my question. But my second question is: at what salary?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think the agreed salary was $1,500 a month.

INCREASE IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week CMHC announced there was a significant increase in the number of mortgage foreclosures in respect to the work that they do, involving a lot of people who are working people and who are losing their houses. Is the minister prepared, in view of this... ? I'll give him the figures, if he likes. Last year there were 29 foreclosures for the whole of the year; this year so far in the first six months there have been 160, and there could be as many as 300 by the end of the year. Is the minister prepared to look into the possibility of a moratorium on such mortgage foreclosures, particularly in respect to low-income people who are attempting to buy houses?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm indebted to the member for his information. I will take his question as notice and bring an answer back to the House.

POSSIBLE BCGEU STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Finance with regard to the escalating situation affecting the. 37,000 members of the B.C. Government Employees Union, which is to take a strike vote on August 28. Since the minister is reported as having said that consideration is being given to locking out all government employees except those in essential services, can the minister tell the

[ Page 4626 ]

House which categories of employees have been designated as essential?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I take it that this body is included!

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate or inadvisable to enter into debate or comment on the progress of negotiations at this stage. It's in the hands of the negotiators. I realize that the union secretary has made certain statements and the government have made their position clear, but the negotiations are continuing and I think we should leave it at that stage at this point.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would make it very clear that I'm not asking to get into any kind of negotiations. I just think there are some points worth raising. The union had suggested selective strike action against government liquor stores, and it was this suggestion that brought forth the minister's response. Can the minister tell the House why the government contemplates what is an extreme response - namely, locking out the employees -when liquor stores do not provide an essential service?

Interjections.

GAIN BENEFITS TO SENIORS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the seniors in receipt of GAIN are getting a "Dear Friend" letter from the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon me, hon. member. Are you directing your question to the Minister of Human Resources?

MS. BROWN: Yes. He is the one who has been sending out the "Dear Friend" letter to the seniors in receipt of GAIN. I have three questions which I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, and since the minister's traditional response is that he will take it as notice, I wonder if I can do my three questions all at once.

MR. SPEAKER: That would not be acceptable, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I have to do one at a time. Okay.

I'll start with No. 1: since the information which the "Dear Friend" letter is requesting has to do with assets and the ministry already has this information on file because you have to file your assets before you are accepted to receive GAIN, why is the ministry conducting this survey? The information is already at the ministry's disposal.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, this information is available for all those making application for GAIN for seniors. It certainly is available for those aged 60 to 65, but for those aged 65 years and over, these benefits are available automatically, of course, and there is no asset requirement of any kind. However, having the information available to us will allow the province of British Columbia to obtain from the federal government considerable cost-sharing dollars available in Ottawa due to the province of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: That was very helpful, Mr. Speaker, and in fact, the letters which I received indicate that these people have already filled out asset forms, but that's okay.

What will happen, Mr. Minister, if a senior citizen refuses to give you this information? What happens to their GAIN cheque?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not compulsory.

MS. BROWN: I have a third and final question. What is the cost of this survey? What is it costing the province for this "Dear Friend" letter to go out to all of the senior citizens who are presently in receipt of GAIN?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, the cost of the letter will be the cost of the letter and the envelope and whatever it was to produce the letter. It's not a costly operation. The returns to British Columbia, providing a good many seniors participate and co-operate.... I'm sure they will, because most seniors in British Columbia, if not all, are apparently a whole lot more interested than most members on the opposition in getting back whatever benefits we can due to the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The question had to do with the cost of mailing the letter out to the senior citizens, hon. minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if the minister is ever able to calculate it, whether he would make this sum in terms of dollars and cents available to me, please.

SECRET AGRICULTURE

COMMITTEE MEETING

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am advised that this morning the agriculture committee held a closed secret meeting with the Retail Council of Canada. I am advised that

[ Page 4627 ]

the terms of reference as distributed by the staff included a discussion of profitability, retail prices, rebates, vertical integration, efficiency, regional price differences, and so on - questions of great public interest. I would like to ask the minister if he was there. (Laughter.)

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): No, Mr. Member, I wash~t there. I was at public accounts, spending the morning listening to. Mr. Lauk, the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the minister, in his capacity as the minister who moved the resolution that set up this committee, if he believes it is proper that closed meetings - closed to the press - should be held by this committee, with Hansard specifically excluded, I am advised ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? What?

MR. GIBSON: ... with this kind of vital public information in the interests of this food inquiry.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, what some of the members attended this morning was not an official hearing, but a seminar, to give information to those members who could attend regarding various aspects of the food industry. It was a seminar, not an official public hearing.

MR. GIBSON: The minister indicates that this was a meeting that was called to give information to members of the committee. I am asking why it was not also given to members of the public; that's my question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, basically, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have just outlined. It was originally intended to be a seminar for the research staff, and the chairman of the committee suggested at one of our previous meetings that those who were able to attend would be welcome. It would give them some insight into some aspects of the food industry.

PHARMACARE EXPENDITURES

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, a question I put to the Minister of Finance and gave him warning of several days ago, I will redirect to the Minister of Human Resources because he was absent yesterday.

Can he tell us, with respect to the first quarterly report, and in particular to the Pharmacare programme, how estimates for expenditure compared with actual expenditure in the first quarter of 1977-78?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the Pharmacare was budgeted for 12 months, and the Universal Pharmacare programme was implemented on June 1. The nature of the Universal Pharmacare means that we expect a larger number of bills later in the year, so it's very difficult to really compare projections with actual figures, considering this new aspect of the Pharmacare programme.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, my question was:

can he tell us how actual expenditure for Pharmacare, in the first quarter, compared with the estimated expenditure? I do know that it's the policy in that department, and indeed in all departments, to have a breakdown, and to have a report month by month, of the actual, compared to the estimated, expenditures.

I think it should not be too difficult to add up the figures. I can appreciate that the figures will be different from quarter to quarter, and I do know that the Minister of Finance has given us total expenditure, as compared to estimated expenditure, for the first quarter. Now there must be some breakdown available within that, and it must include a breakdown for Pharmacare.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary, actual projections for the quarter, as opposed to actual expenditure, may not apply in the normal manner in this particular instance because of the universal portion coming into effect June 1. This means that though the drugs are purchased now, the actual billing for those particular purchases will not come through until the latter part of the year, possibly the third or fourth quarter. In actual fact, on the normal projections, which were assumed on the basis of universal Pharmacare coming in to effect at an earlier date, the budget is probably $700,000 under the actual projection on the basis of Pharmacare coming in earlier. But because Pharmacare came into effect June 1, and the billing came in later, those projections may not be applicable in this instance. Actually we would ~guesstimate that the figures are pretty well right on taken on the annual basis. So we're very pleased with the programme as to how it's going and as to how the figures appear to be coming in right on line. We're very happy with it.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 81.

[ Page 4628 ]

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I apologize t o the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , as well as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) . I don't believe I had the opportunity of providing my speaking notes to you. The order of this bill and the one following came on a little before I had anticipated and I did not have the opportunity of doing so. However, I think that all members of the House are basically aware of what the government wants to do on these two bills. I do apologize, however, if it would have been more convenient if I'd been able to give you those notes.

The purpose of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which was passed in June, 1975, but not proclaimed until January of this year. Most of the changes which are proposed are minor drafting changes - or I should perhaps say that many of them are - and the explanatory notes, I think, more than adequately take care of the necessary explanations. Other changes proposed are more fundamental and are introduced to give effect to some of the changes and liquor policy which the government announced on March 31 of this year.

A third type of amendment, Mr. Speaker, is aimed at tightening up some matters of liquor administration which, while not previously announced, are consistent with the philosophy of this government and, I hope, of all members of this House, to reduce the ways in which the consumption of liquor and liquor licences may be abused.

I don't propose to address myself during second reading to the amendments relating to the simple drafting changes, but the issues surrounding changes in the Act giving effect to earlier policy pronouncements are those which are set out in the rules relating to the licensing of neighbourhood pubs. It is made clear that the wishes of residents in the area where the pub is to be located are to be a major factor in any decision by the general manager to issue a licence.

We think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that anything as potentially troublesome and I emphasize the word "potentially" as a neighbourhood pub should be put to the local residents in as broad terms as possible. Therefore their rights have been set out far more clearly in this proposed legislation.

We think it also very important, Mr. Speaker, that the general manager be notified in advance of an applicant going into a neighbourhood or a municipality to discuss a potential neighbourhood pub. The problem is simply this, Mr. Speaker, that the neighbourhood pub is perceived by so many people to be of such a great financial benefit to the public and themselves that we have had an enormous number of people going into various areas, coming up with potential sites and, of course, flooding both municipalities and our department with applications.

We want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, through this legislation and through policy, that we will not consider licensing known problem areas such as locations adjacent to highways or close to schools and other social facilities. The general manager will be required to consider the question of proliferation of establishments and the economic viability of licensed premises as a whole.

We will insist of course that the general manager take into consideration questions of zoning, parking, the appearance of the establishment itself and the need of a local community for such an outlet, along with the problem that might arise such as those created by traffic noise and so forth.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's very important that we are now requiring pre-clearance, because of the literally hundreds of applications that I mentioned to you. We think that it is an act of charity and an act of fair play that we let a proposed licensee know what our policy is going to be before he goes to the trouble and expense of holding referenda, going to municipal authorities and matters of that sort.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the view of the government, and I hope of this House, that the point of view of the municipality or the local government is important in the licensing of liquor outlets, section 8 provides a power to the general manager to suspend the liquor licence where the licence of a municipality, regional or a provincial authority has been suspended. Some commentators, Mr. Speaker, have assumed that this would be something automatic. This is not so. They have assumed therefore that municipalities would have total control over licensed establishments and of course that is not so. The authority is entirely permissive and it gives the general manager authority to suspend - not the municipality.

It has become clear, Mr. Speaker, that where, for instance, a municipality has lifted a licensed-premises health permit, we cannot permit liquor to be served in a restaurant wherein the restaurant licence requires the selling of food along with the liquor. Similarly, where the provincial government has cancelled, for instance, the sales tax licence, it would be folly for us to continue to allow liquor to be sold. This is simply common sense but, unfortunately, some commentators have misunderstood and have miscommentated.

The last point relating to the earlier announcement that I wish to discuss is the question of appeals for issuing of licences being transferred from the Liquor Board, which is abolished by this bill, to the minister. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this has been one of the most difficult decisions that the government, and

[ Page 4629 ]

particularly I, have had to make. I paid great attention to my friend, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , and to others, in his comments during my estimates on this particular point.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that what we have to consider here is that appeals of this nature to the courts would be unduly lenient;, in terms of their time, and unduly expensive to the licencee as well as to the government. Appeals to the Liquor Board have, for the reasons I gave in my estimates, proved to be unsatisfactory in that - and I mean No criticism of the members individually; I think it was because of the difficulty of framing proper terms of reference -the net result of the Liquor Board appeals was that they became a second licensing body, and rather than concern themselves with the discretions that must be exercised in the granting of a licence to sell drugs, they were, in fact, inclined to interpret the letter of the law and grant, or refuse applications on that basis.

I think, therefore, that the - only way this House can have direct access to the appeal process and direct power to question the validity of any decisions made in that appeal is to have them conducted by the minister, or a person appropriately designated by him. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it is my intention to see that any of these hearings - assuming that the House passes this legislation - are public, and the appellant has the full power to be heard, to be represented by counsel, and to call evidence. I of course invite any members opposite to sit in on any of these appeals when they take place. Now some of them, of course, will in all likelihood be based on a rather perfunctory set of circumstances and it may very well be that the hearing is disposed of accordingly, but as for those that are based on questions of substance, I would be delighted to have any members of this House - and, in particular, members from the opposition - present.

Mr. Speaker, there is a third type of amendment that I would like to deal with very briefly, and that's the tightening of liquor licensing and control. I might say that there are no swift or ready answers available to any of us in guiding us as to how society provides civilized drinking laws - pleasant premises, a sufficient number of licences to adequately meet the needs, and so forth. I think that because of the difficulty in coming up with these decisions, any decision a government makes, any Act a government proposes, is bound to have drawbacks and bound to be subject to criticism. There are many social pressures upon all of us as legislators. There are pressures upon all of us from all facets of society to do things in different ways. All we can do is come up with what we think is the best compromise of a very difficult situation. I hope that these amendments will go at least some way down the line towards accomplishing that purpose.

As members of this House know, I have previously announced that the government will be embarking on a major campaign to promote moderation in the drinking of alcohol. We have already seen what results we've had from the Attorney-General's programme to discourage drinking and driving. I think that it's been successful and my colleague is to be applauded for the steps he has taken.

We in our ministry, along with the Minister of Health and others, intend to undertake a major campaign and this is in the works now. I hope to have something to say to the House in this regard in the very near future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under section 20, and this is an area which has captured the imagination of many news commentators in the last little while, the municipalities or regional districts are given the power to restrict or prohibit any or all of the types of entertainment permitted under a liquor licence.

I have received a great deal of comment, as I'm sure many members of this House have, from people in their own cities or regional districts, about this particular section or proposed section of the Act.

I think I can simply say this, Mr. Speaker. This government does not feel that a decision as to the type of entertainment carried on in a licensed premise ought to be made by a civil servant in Victoria or by a politician in Victoria or in some ivory tower. This is something that should be subject to the wishes of the individuals within the municipality or the regional district itself, as expressed through the people it elects locally - either its representatives on the regional district or its councilmen or members of the city or municipal council.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we do not think that the people in Prince George necessarily want to have the same type of entertainment as those in Vancouver. We don't think that we in Victoria should make the decision for either Vancouver or Prince George.

We think that some of the criticism that has been levelled in this regard betrays, if I may say so on behalf of municipalities and local governments, a remarkable reluctance to take on any authority unto themselves where a sense of responsibility goes with that authority.

We are constantly hearing - and I'm sure the members opposite were hearing the same thing when they were the government - criticism from local government for rule from Victoria where local rule would be better. Yet when you offer the power to rule to the localities they complain because it brings upon them a decision which may be unpopular or unfavourably received at the local level.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe I heard the buffalo

[ Page 4630 ]

doctor make a comment from across the House. Thank you very much, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I think I prefer to speak to this particular bill at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the comment has nothing to do with the bill that is before us.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate that. I didn't know until I had heard it, though, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes there's a latent germ of credibility in these remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the remainder of the Act has to do with such things as giving the general manager control over the sale of what some would call medicinal preparations containing liquor, the powers of peace officers to search for liquor. It has broadened and clarified their powers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the question of fees for distillers, brewers, and wineries. The essence of what we are doing in these sections is to pass the amount of the fee by regulation so that we can keep in tune with the times as they progress, and to encourage the distilling of whiskey in British Columbia rather than merely the bottling of it. I think that all sides of the House which have examined this problem will recognize that the previous rules, inadvertently to be sure, encouraged distilleries to import the liquor in bulk and bottle it here rather than distill it. We feel that these provisions will encourage the actual distilling of the liquor here, and of course the increase in employment.

Insofar as the wineries are concerned, we would like to impose fees which, after all, do not bring too much by way of revenue to the Crown, and reduce the fees to a substantially smaller amount to encourage the small family winery, rather than the large national concern taking over the local winery.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have been able to give the members a fairly complete explanation of this bill amending the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. I look forward, of course, to hearing comments from the members opposite and other members. I now move second reading of the bill.

MR. LEVI: I'm not going to be very long because we will deal with a lot of this in the committee stage. But I do want to make some comment in respect to the authority that will be vested in the municipalities. We've had sort of a mixed approach from the government regarding the municipalities. In some areas they look for an ultimate centralization, and in others they are looking for decentralization.

This session of the Legislature may go down as being the session in which the government took unto itself an enormous amount of centralization. But in this particular area, they have decided to decentralize the question of entertainment in respect to drinking places to municipalities.

It is my feeling that while it is important for municipalities to have certain powers, I wonder whether this particular move is not going to create in British Columbia a number of tenderloin strips. We have a number of municipalities that are anxious to get revenue. We've already had some indication from the mayor of Surrey that he would like to see some gambling establishments. Short of the gambling establishments, we might see some rather interesting forms of entertainment in Surrey. We might even see it in Langley.

The thing is that we are not going to get a very uniform kind of policy. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is.... If you sit down, I won't refer to you.

If you're going to have an entertainment policy, I think that's one thing, and to decentralize to municipalities is okay. But then you may get situations where you are going to get municipalities who are going to see that there is an opportunity if you provide the right kind of entertainment to attract a large number of people. I think we only have to look at what goes on at Point Roberts to see the kind of entertainment that goes on down there.

If the minister doesn't do it when he is summing up, we'll ask him when he's getting into the committee stage of the bill if he doesn't foresee some very serious problems in respect to breaking down of a general policy which is the way to go in the initial stages. If you're going to give the power to municipalities, I think we may find some very difficult applications of this kind of policy.

It depends to some extent on the personality and the outlook of the mayor and some of his council people. We already know the mayor of Vancouver has some very particular feelings about pornography. We know that some mayo~s have attitudes towards nude dancers and some don't. Some are quite happy to have them. So we're going to get this kind of imbalance, and because it's seen as an opportunity to attract people, we may. find ourselves with some very serious problems. Miniature Las Vegases without the gambling - that's, of course, what people are dreaming about, I suppose, in some municipalities, that we could get gambling. But you could get it very much in respect to the business of giving it to some municipalities.

However, I suppose what we can do is to try it and see, and then you can always come back and amend the Act. I think that there is some kind of problem; certainly we've seen it happen in other provinces. We know the kind of problems that have existed right in the heart of Toronto and the kind of attempt to clean up that is going on down there right now. ,

I wonder if the minister would, in summing up or

[ Page 4631 ]

in committee, tell us whether he's been able to look at the question of incorporating into the Act something on the rubbing alcohol problem. He has a definition in the early part of the bill on alcohol content, but is it in fact something that he might be able to move on in a very specific way? It may not be recognized by the liquor control board or the liquor administration as being an alcoholic drink, but it certainly is recognized by a lot of the residents of our downtown areas.

If we are not able, as a result of city bylaws.... The municipalities are always reluctant to pull business licences of people. They lean on them. They say to them, "You musn't do this, " but nevertheless it still keeps coming in. Recently we had a report in the press as a result of some work done by the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. So that's something that in terms of prevention the minister might be able to look at in respect to rubbing alcohol.

Another thing I want to ask him about is, why is it necessary that we have to amend in this bill the issues of personal search? I presume by personal search that he means this is actually a body search. This is not something where a policeman comes in to a restaurant and says to somebody: "Do you have a bottle under the seat?" I presume that if this passes, you're either going to have to get up and, if necessary, he can do a skin frisk. Now, that's going a lot further than what has happened in the past. I'm just wondering, what's the rationale for this kind of ... if it is a body search.... I will take it that it is, because the normal process at the moment is simply to look under the table or to look in somebody's car. So perhaps the minister might enlarge on that for us ' because we know whether in fact.... We're going to get into some areas where people are going to get pretty upset and that's when you get confrontation, when they're going to have to have a body search in respect to whether they're hiding some kind of bottles of alcohol or whatever.

I would hate to see us get into the position where, if we're going to allow body searches, we get definitions from the court that the police or the inspectors are allowed to use any reasonable amount of force to obtain their objectives. I would hate to see that happen. We know what happens in terms of the drug business.

So perhaps the minister would tell us if this is what they've got in mind when he does make reference to.... In his press release, he says: "The new Act also gives law enforcement officers the right to search persons they believe to be unlawfully in possession of alcohol." I can see, Mr. Speaker, some very serious problems here. We may have some confrontations, which makes it difficult for the police. It would be difficult if it happens in an establishment and that's a problem. So I would like the minister to enlarge on that one.

There is the other question which deals with the behaviour of people who are intoxicated in drinking establishments and it certainly is a good idea to be able to say to someone - and as I understand it it always has been that way - that you are not required to serve someone who is obviously in the state of intoxication.

But the thing is the question of seeing him off the premises. What I would be interested in is, what will happen if they don't do any of these things? The minister may be aware that in one or two jurisdictions in California, there is a procedure whereby, if a tavern owner is found to 'be serving someone who is intoxicated and that person has left the establishment and has gone out and got into an accident, there usually is some action taken against the tavern owner after the required kind of investigation, usually resulting in suspension of the licence.

The question in respect to this is, what kind of sanctions are there in terms of the hotel people in looking at people who are intoxicated? I appreciate what the minister has said, that presumably, somebody who's been asked to leave, that somebody will be bright enough to accept that. If they're going to ask somebody who is drunk to leave the premises, somebody's got to make sure that he doesn't get into any trouble outside, that he doesn't stumble into the traffic or something like that. We may have the hotel owners saying: "But we're not prepared to call cabs for every drunk we've got in our place. "But then, of course, there's the other question to the hotel owners: "If you insist on serving drunks, then you're going to have to certainly pay the price and see that they get home safely." But I would like the minister to enlarge on what sanctions there are if this particular thing doesn't happen.

Just generally, before I sit down.... In terms of the change in the liquor regulations, we're moving at a reasonable pace into the 2 1 st century regarding the way we deal with alcohol and the way that government sees it. Certainly for a long time and certainly prior to the NDP government, we had great problems in terms of attitudes, particularly by government leaders, about alcohol. My colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (MR. Macdonald) , started us on a road not just to liberalization in a sense that we were going to become free and easy, but simply that we were going to be up to date with what we're doing.

I must say that what the minister is doing is certainly continuing with this. I'm not sure in everything he does that that's the right way to go. I still cannot share his feeling about the appeals. I do feel that he is making a mistake there. But again, I suppose what we'll have to do is to see what happens in respect to trying it. If he finds that he's spending 95 per cent of his time warding off people who are

[ Page 4632 ]

very unhappy.... Of course, he may be relieved somewhat, Mr. Speaker, of that, because if he makes the wrong kind of decision and we have the ombudsman in place, then I presume they can go to the ombudsman. That is a further....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, not in that case? They have to.... Yes, I agree they would exhaust their appeal and then they'd finally go and exhaust the ombudsman. There is another level beyond the minister. At least, there will be presumably, if the bill passes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in here.

MR. LEVI: That'll be the day when we consider appeals in here. We can't even discuss business in standing committees. We would be in rough shape looking at appeals in here.

So, all in all, I think over the past four or five years we've moved towards a much more reasonable approach to the issues of liquor, liquor laws, liquor licensing, and the forms of dispensing liquor in terms of neighbourhood pubs.

I would hope that we can look down the road a little further. Because I was raised in England, I personally have never been afraid to say that there has to be a way of developing establishments for people in this province in terms of pubs, or near-pubs, where children can be part of the scene. I'm not talking about having them go into the kind of beer parlour that we all know, but certainly there has to be one step further taken in respect to making some of our drinking establishments much more oriented towards the family, and that includes children. There's absolutely nothing wrong with children sitting down with their parents while they're drinking and they have some kind of soft drink. That's a standard procedure in many countries in the world and that's another step further that we have to go in again continuing to modernize our drinking laws.

I will sit down now and get into the specifics of these things particularly in the committee stage.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister apologized for not sending over the advance copy of his speaking notes on this bill. I just want to say how much I appreciate the fact that he does do that from time to time. It's very useful to those of us in the opposition. Like the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard I feel this is largely a committee bill, but I do want to make a couple of general comments. I am as concerned after this bill as I was before about the tremendous discretionary power of the general manager and the liquor control process in our province generally.

I would be very glad if the minister might see fit to comment either in closing debate on second reading or at some time during the committee stage, on a specific case in point which he may be familiar with in Monday 'Magazine. I'm speaking of the case of the Youngs up at Armstrong which, on the surface at least, appears to be a case in point where that discretionary' power was abused all through the process and when finally the appeal board overruled it, the very validity of the appeal board ruling itself was taken to court. These people are out many months, and much money, in this particular process. So whether the minister would care to comment on closing second reading or in committee stage, I'd like to learn more about that case. But I think the minister himself must be concerned with some of the discretion that's in this area.

On the principle that he alluded to that's set out in section 20 which would allow the various municipalities in the province to restrict or prohibit types of entertainment permitted by various establishments, I can't agree with the minister that it's a question of local rule versus rule from Victoria. To me, it's a question of the rule of law. There are some kinds of activities in our society that are permitted under law - and we're speaking about the Criminal Code when we're talking about these sorts of things - and it seems to me it's up to the courts to determine what that is. Specifically, they should decide which types the law permits and which it proscribes, and this should be the same throughout the land and enforced, by the courts.

After all, Mr. Speaker, anybody who doesn't like the entertainment in ' any particular establishment doesn't have to go to that establishment. We can be concerned whether or not it's legal, and that's a question for the courts, but as to whether or not it offends a person, he or she doesn't have to go there. If it becomes a question of the particular establishment attracting too many people, or persons indulging in a kind of behaviour outside of the premises which is disturbing to the neighbourhood, that's a different question, and a question which can be dealt with under the regulations relating to the size of the particular establishment. I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is showing some agitation at this point. I hope he'll give us the benefit of his experience as a former mayor and a representative of Surrey in this particular regard, where there has been much discussion of this particular problem, but I'm giving him and I'm giving the House my view, which is that these questions should more properly be regulated by the courts.

If it really is a question of giving more local control, I might be willing to buy that argument, but you only give more local control if you give the municipalities power to do something positive rather than restrictive. The proposal here is that the Liquor Board itself would allow certain things and the

[ Page 4633 ]

municipality could detract from that class of activities which are allowable, but the municipalities are not given the power to expand the types of entertainment permitted by the Liquor Board, so I say that without that kind of balance it's not a genuine increase of local control or decentralization. That's not what is proposed here. I re-echo the concern of the second member for Vancouver-Burrard on the rubbing alcohol question. We'll not go into it further here, but I think it's a very, very serious problem in our society.

The pre-clearing system for permits, which the minister mentioned, I hope will have the effect that he predicts, which is that people will be saved a lot of money and useless time in going through applications that would never have a chance of succeeding in the first place.

I would point out to the minister that the other side of that coin is that persons may be stopped in the first instance from even going out and attempting to obtain local support from neighbourhood residents and from the local municipal council, when that support might be forthcoming simply by the arbitrary decision of the general manager. Once again it's this terrible question of discretion that runs all through the Act. I understand that there is an appeal to the minister in this particular regard but we have to consider how realistic that is.

First of all, no minister is going to be in the regular business of overturning the rulings of his senior civil servants, or else he has to dismiss the senior civil servants. You can't do that as a routine kind of thing. If the minister says he proposes to do that I would be interested to hear it, but I would be surprised.

Beyond that, any applicant who succeeded in such an application for appeal would always have to fear in the back of his mind - I speak here not of the general manager of the day but of some possible time in the future - that having successfully appealed around that particular official, he would have his eye very closely fixed on that particular establishment forever after in order to get back at them for having successfully circumvented their authority in the original case.

I point out that very real problem to the minister in a provision which I'm sure was well intended. I would be grateful to know how he would propose to react to that particular point of view.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that this bill, while it is not producing any dramatic changes, has two particularly important underlying principles. I certainly wish to echo the question asked by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) regarding this matter of the actual search of individuals. I think here we are getting into an area -as with the other point that I want to get to in a moment - where we may be exaggerating the measures that are really necessary to maintain the orderly distribution and retailing of liquor in society. Not for a moment am I suggesting that we should not do the best we can to have reasonable and sensible balanced rules and regulations.

In fact, if I can digress for a moment from the main point I want to make and talk about the opinions the minister has expressed about neighbourhood pubs and the requirements before these can be established, I'd have to say that I find that one of the most encouraging parts of this bill. Although I'm a person who enjoys alcohol, I personally don't believe that we need any more outlets for the sale of liquor. That is my personal opinion, but I have no wish to get into debate on that per se, nor would the House want to.

It's a simple fact of life that the one factor that encourages excessive use of alcohol is its ready availability. The one thing that has any diminishing effect on the use of alcohol is the price. I won't go into all the details but I have a lot of material that demonstrates rather clearly that the more readily available it is the more it is consumed and, generally speaking, the higher the price the more chance there is of somewhat limiting the consumption.

I just read an article in today's Province quoting George Stegan from the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Society saying that it is the most massive social problem facing British Columbia. I think he used the word "epidemic." Against that kind of background, any legislation we debate that regulates the sale and distribution of liquor, to my way of thinking, is extremely important.

While this bill is better debated section by section, there is that first general principle that this bill does not make liquor more easily available to the public. Considering that the proliferation of neighbourhood pubs could go in that direction, I welcome the minister's restraining type of comment that there may be a role for neighbourhood pubs, but if there is a real proliferation of applicants - because it seems to be a money-maker - then I think that this is the time the local residents who may inherit a neighbourhood pub should be given the kind of support in this bill that would ensure them of consultation and a real opportunity to express their view as to each situation where a neighbourhood pub is being sought.

But the second point that I had already started on,

Mr. Speaker, is the question of a personal search of an individual to see if liquor is being illegally secreted on the person. I would hope that while that might seem to be necessary sometimes, the minister can reassure us that this will be done on a minimum of occasions and with some very substantial justification in the first place. Society is just becoming so bogged down with rules and regulations through all the increasing layers of government we have that very soon the

[ Page 4634 ]

individual will have great difficulty having a day's outing in our society without running afoul of the law for some alleged case or other.

Again, I have a case I'm dealing with right now where a young man traveling with his mother in a taxi.... I don't know the details of what the young man is alleged to have done, but the mother was lumped in with the son and carted off to jail and spent a night in jail, completely innocent of any charge. There was no charge laid.

This kind of thing is happening all too often in society. The more we give any level of government power to interfere with the individual, we are headed for trouble. When we're getting down to the business of searching individuals to see if they've got a mickey in their hip pocket, I think we're getting very close to encouraging.... I hesitate to use the words "police state, " but we're encouraging a society where it's becoming all to easy to interfere with an individual.

We've heard other cases recently where well-meaning police arrested a couple and manhandled them in trying to find if they had drugs on their person. That was in Vancouver. So it's not enough to say: "Well, we need this power, but of course we don't really mean to use it. It will be used with discretion." We get all the other qualifying phrases. I just want to know how the minister sees this element as being used in the bill.

Now the last point, and the other equally important principle, is this question of leaving the decision about entertainment in pubs or entertainment in hotels and liquor outlets to the municipalities. I'll avoid mentioning the other bill that's before this House, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out.

I have to reject the minister's justification for this principle in the bill on the basis that it just so totally contradicts the other direction that this government is going under another minister who could completely contradict any local action taken by the municipality through this particular section. So I wish the government would get its act together. I'm not trying to make smart political points. As I understand it, the point this minister is trying to make through giving power to the municipalities could be completely wiped out by the power we're about to give to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. So it's very difficult to debate this and stay within the rules.

I say that quickly in passing, and maybe the minister would be given the latitude of responding as to how he sees the proposed authority being given to the municipalities when in turn we have this other authority and another minister more directly related to municipalities which, if he decides - or she, if it were a lady minister - that the local decision of the municipality is not in the public interest.... So I see an interesting but very direct conflict between some of the power that the minister says he wishes to give to the municipalities compared to the centralized power which the Minister of Municipal Affairs is about to acquire.

But beyond that, which is an argument in itself, I feel again that society must try to develop a more specific and understandable location of the authority which decides on this kind of issue. We've~ already referred to the complete confusion which seems to relate to pornography. The level of government that I gather in this case that's been decided as having the authority is the federal government, primarily, or probably totally. Similarly, I wonder, by the very essence of our municipal structure and the large number of municipalities throughout our province, whether in fact that is the right place at which to allocate the authority to decide what is acceptable entertainment.

Again, it seems to me that in various types of legislation we are coming closer and closer to trying to legislate morality. I don't know how often I have heard members in this House speak about how impossible it is to legislate morality, and I agree. Yet we come up time and time again, with legislation which either attempts to do just that, or to pass the buck to some other level of authority, and ask them to do it.

While I recognize the validity in the point of view that perhaps local people should be given some considerable voice in deciding what they want, or don't want, in their municipality, you just can't have a hodge-podge of different levels of attempts to legislate morality. In a core area like the greater Victoria area, you've got one set of judgments by a bunch of aldermen in Saanich, and a different one in Oak Bay, and another one in Victoria, and a different one in Esquimalt.

Despite the wish to try and respect local autonomy, and local decisions by aldermen, I think that because of the very essence of the issue -namely, judging what is decent or indecent, acceptable or not acceptable, from a variety of opinion across eight or ten people around a council table - I see this particular principle of the bill as creating endless problems for every municipality in this province.

On that note, I wonder if I could ask the minister if he received a large or small number of complaints from municipalities specifically asking the minister that the authority be given to them. I don't recall the Union of B.C. Municipalities passing any particular motion at their annual meeting, but I may be wrong on that point. I would like to ask the minister what the position of the Union of B.C. Municipalities is on this very difficult area.

I'm not suggesting that either one of us has the right answer. I think the minister's decision in passing control to the municipalities is not the best one, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it's not all one way

[ Page 4635 ]

or the other. I could feel more informed if the minister would tell us what the municipalities have said to him prior to bringing in this amendment.

What general consultation has the minister had with other interested parties from either side of the argument: the entertainers, their employers, the dancers, or whatever? Has the minister had consultation with them, as well as with local representatives - not necessarily locally elected representatives but citizens' groups, who have expressed the wish that either the municipalities should have this power, or that the provincial government should retain that power, on a centralized or semi-centralized basis?

There is no question that many people in society are very unhappy, as indeed they should be, about the increased permissiveness that has developed in the types of "entertainment" that have become commonplace in many hotels, clubs and liquor outlets.

There seems to be some justifiable reason to try and decide what is an acceptable standard and what is not. That is a desirable goal, but I'm far from convinced that this bill provides the best mechanism, simply because of the vast numbers of municipalities, and the great difficulty I would foresee in different groups of aldermen and women sitting around a council table trying to decide whether the nudie show down the road is acceptable or not.

The reason I ask if the minister has had any real representation from the Union of B.C. Municipalities is that it is my impression from when I served on a municipal council that in no way was it fair or reasonable to land this particular judgment, which deals very much with public morality, on the shoulders of the elected municipal aldermen and alderwomen.

Now I may be wrong. Maybe times have changed, and the people who get elected to municipal office are quite willing, and grateful, to have this decision placed on them. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, very important that in trying to bring this matter into some kind of reasonable focus, we should be very careful how, and where, we place the ultimate decision. There have been enough problems, as I've mentioned earlier, dealing with pornography, where in my view there shouldn't be much doubt that the issue of specifics being discussed seem unacceptable and indecent and sometimes far worse than that. But should this not be decided by taking such a matter to a court, rather than putting it in the hands of, as I say, aldermen who already have a larger and larger array of items on their agenda at every council meeting just because of the increasing involvement of all kinds of government legislation that I've already referred to in my comments?

I recognize that there's no simple easy answer. The tremendous national concern over the pornography issue demonstrates that very clearly. The pornography problem, I think, is immensely more serious than the potential ill or otherwise of nude dancing, for example. The kinds of things we've read about lately in Toronto shouldn't leave any reasonable citizen in doubt that this is something we do not want to encourage or condone in society in any way whatever. But just because that's the clearcut end of the spectrum where we want some definite authority to act and stop it doesn't mean that when we move down the line or across the spectrum into some of these grayer areas we should necessarily say to the local people, "Well, you make up your mind, " and feel that we've done something rather courageous by putting it on their shoulders. I doesn't matter who has to make a decision in the long run, it's not an easy one, because it does get into the area of judging morals, morality and human behaviour. I just personally feel that the situation would be far better if, where a municipality believes that a style of entertainment within its boundaries is indecent and wrong and unacceptable according to general public standards of morality, they would take that case to court.

I suppose the answer is that the courts are busy enough without being cluttered up with this kind of thing. That may be true. We had a court case than went on six months dealing with prostitution, a subject that's been around since the world began. So I suppose one should show some hesitation in encouraging more and more of our social problems to be settled in the courts. But as far as I'm concerned I think society as a whole will not run the risk of overacting in the regulation of morality and human behaviour by giving the responsibility for the decision to the local elected official.

It's because of that that I will certainly be voting against that section of the bill. In voting on second reading, Mr. Speaker, I'm willing to support the bill in general, but I don't want any misunderstanding that I oppose section 20 and will do so in committee.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a very few comments to what has been said in this very interesting debate this afternoon. I think there is a danger in the power to search for unlawful liquor that may be on a person, which are the words of the Act. The next step of this government will be to search for unlawful liquor in a person, I suppose. It's a dangerous trend, because if you begin to make a search on the human body for a mickey, then you have a reaction from the indignant citizen, and probably a legitimate reaction. You have a scuffle; you have an interference with liberty, and I don't think that's necessary. I think the general power we've always had to find liquor that is unlawfully kept on premises, and that is visible or under the table or something of that kind, is fine and

[ Page 4636 ]

works pretty well. But let's not have personal searches.

In regards to the entertainment problem, I always took the position when I was Attorney-General, which was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, that I should not, as Attorney-General, have any censorship power in the realm of entertainment through the issuance of licences. I think the community pretty well looked after the problem. There was a proliferation of strip joints for a while, but it has abated.

Community standards have asserted themselves in a very responsible way in the province of B.C. Now we're going to give the power of censorship to municipal councils. When I say "censorship, " I mean stepping in and lifting the licence of somebody who is providing entertainment which is legitimate under the ordinary laws of Canada and British Columbia, and of the Criminal Code.

To that kind of a problem you have to apply the McKitka test, Mr. Speaker. Would you like to live in a municipality where Mayor McKitka was the mayor and had a nice little majority on his council and was in favour of Las Vegas gambling, which he couldn't have because that's the Criminal Code of Canada, fortunately? But he is against modern art and has got very great doubts about the Song of Solomon in terms of its decency.

I don't think that that's the kind of role that should be played. I think if entertainment is allowed, as I say, by the general law of the province, and it does not contravene the criminal laws of Canada, I do not think we should begin to step in and say we will now restrict that entertainment by a municipality having the power to pick up a licence or to direct the liquor administration to pick up the licence. That's my feeling on that section.

The other thing I wish to comment upon very briefly is the erosion in the public body that hears appeals. Now I agree with the minister that this is a very small step backward from the liquor appeal board which we established in the NDP legislation. I'm not objecting to the transferal of those appeals from a special liquor appeal board to the Consumer and Corporate Affairs commission, because I think they are doing a very good job. I think very capable people are serving on that commission.

I recognize that the only matter to go to the minister would be the refusal of a licence. As I understand, all of the other matters can go to that appeal body. They will hold regular hearings and it will be done according to law. But it's a little step backward, Mr. Speaker, in that the refusal to grant a licence will now be appealable to the minister, who will decide the appeal in his discretion.

I was going to use a name but I'm not going to. Here you have to apply another test. I was thinking for a moment of one of the predecessors of the Kamloops seat of the hon. minister. If he were the minister, how happy would you feet about this section?

HON. MR. MAIR: You're referring to Gerry Anderson!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes - the Anderson test. Would you feel happy on the Anderson test in giving this discretion? Would you feel happy if the late Big Bill Thompson, the former mayor of Chicago, were here and was the minister who had this kind of discretion? The immediate answer to that is no, you would not feel happy. You wouldn't want to give that kind of discretion.

I know this minister is talking very fairly about an open hearing. He's talking about the evidence being heard. He's talking about the right to counsel, but none of that is in the bill. There are no requirements for a fair hearing or an open hearing in this bill. It is ministerial discretion; it is political discretion, however you cut it. It's a step back to the bad old days when licences were given or refused according to political consideration and political campaign contributions. When I say that, I am not suggesting anything in regard to this minister. I say this section is put forward in good faith. But it is a retreat, Mr. Speaker, from the kind of open, public hearing by non-political persons that was instituted by the NDP government. I regret that.

I suppose the minister is worried about the proliferation of too many licences. So would I be. But I think that if the appeal still went to the commission you could hedge that around with regulations and restrict the flow, but restrict it in general terms. Don't restrict it in terms of allowing the licence application of Smith and disallowing that of Jones without a body of general regulations, or your Act, to determine that case according to law. Political discretion and the refusal of licences is creeping back into our liquor laws in British Columbia. It's only a little bit of a creep-back, but I think, Mr. Speaker, it's a dangerous step and I regret to see that particular section.

Like the hon. member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) generally the direction of the bill I think is fine and I'm not prepared to oppose it in second reading, but in some of these sections I have very grave doubts.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'll try as best I can to answer the various questions raised by the hon. members opposite. First of all, I would like to deal with the question of rubbing alcohol and refer the members to section 26 - this is amending section 66 of the Act - which says: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) , and subject to the Pharmacy Act and the regulations under that Act, the general manager may direct the manner in which a medicinal preparation containing liquor sufficient to be used as

[ Page 4637 ]

an alcoholic beverage shall be sold, distributed and kept for sale." Read that in connection with section 66 of the Act as it presently exists and I think, Mr. Member, that does give the general manager the power that you asked. What you're concerned about is the enforcement of that power once it has been granted. I quite agree that that always has got to be a problem, and I hope I'll be able to say to tile House in future months and years that we are, indeed, enforcing that section of the Act. I agree with you that it's a terrible problem in many areas of our province.

Dealing with the question of the control of the types of licence at the local level, I'm interested in the rather sex-oriented attitude of the members opposite. Oddly enough, I thought of this section more in the light of the Oak Bay Beach Hotel having a noisy discotheque and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) wanting to raise hob with me for allowing that to happen. I felt it would be much better that he take that question to the Oak Bay municipal council rather than me. I'm quite serious. We have more problems with licensed premises, Mr. Member, concerning noise and that sort of thing, than we ever have with a question of obscenity or of obscene shows.

Now as for the question of obscenity itself, I quite agree that you can't legislate morals, and we're not trying to do so. The Criminal Code of Canada has attempted definition of obscenity for many years -particularly lately - and there's nothing in this Act that derogates from the power of a municipality, or anybody else, to test the type of performance against the laws of the Criminal Code of Canada, and they can do so. What we are saying is: "Mr. Mayor and council, if you don't want to have a rock concert at such and such a place and licence it, or if you don't want to have a discotheque that keeps all the neighbours up all night long, that's your affair. Don't expect us in Victoria, in an ivory-tower situation, to try and tell you what you should do in what area.

MR. MACDONALD: Make a general law - a noise bylaw.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, that's your opinion, Mr. Member. I won't be so unkind as to refer to Rip Van Winkle, as my friend, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) did last night, but I don't recall anything on the books dealing with this situation crossing my desk when I took over the liquor administration having come from the previous administration. As a matter of fact, the Acts weren't even proclaimed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll try and be factual instead of kind. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I think that the question of a purely local nature 'as to the type of entertainment permitted in licensed premises - let's not forget we're talking about premises licensed to sell a drug - is better decided by the local people at the local level.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate your desire to get on with it, but I intend to answer the questions that were raised, Mr. Member.

As for the question of a personal search, I want to tell the member that until this Act was proclaimed, of course, there was a right of the police to search personally for illicit alcohol. It was taken away and we've been requested by the police to bring it back for a very good reason. As it presently stands, juveniles particularly who have got a bulge which can only indicate a bottle of whiskey sitting in their pocket can turn up their noses at the police and say: "You can't do anything about it."

Now I don't expect that the police, who have enough to do in administering the laws of this province and this country, are going to waste a heck of a lot of time in searching people for liquor. But we do feel that when we do have these kinds of disturbances that the former Attorney-General knows only too well exist in B.C., we must give the police the power to put a stop to it by taking away the liquor. They can't be thwarted in that simply because the bottle happens to be stuck inside the coat pocket of the individual involved.

I quite agree with the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) on his question of tightening up laws with respect to overserving. I think his reference to dram-shop laws in some parts of the United States is very well taken. I think we'll see the day in Canada when we have dram-shop laws and we have civil liability upon publicans who overserve. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, there has already been one case that was at least partially successful in the province of Ontario on that particular ground.

As for the question of removing intoxicated persons from a public place, my understanding is that it has been held that a licensed premise is not per se a public place. The police have had no power until now to remove a person who was intoxicated, regardless of how he got that way, from that public place. This gives them that power.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I believe, if I'm not mistaken, raised and spoke about many of the issues that I've now discussed.

But I would like very much, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to table the document with consent, which is a letter that I just sent to the editor of the Vernon News

[ Page 4638 ]

concerning the Young case. The reason I would like to answer in this way is because the matter is before the courts on at least one basis, and perhaps two. Mr. Young has, in my opinion, been remarkably uncandid with the editor of B.C. Today concerning his troubles with the RCMP, his bootlegging charges and his previous experiences. In order to be as careful in answering the member's question as-I was in answering the editor, I would prefer to do it by filing this letter and not taking up the time in the House by reading it. So with leave I would file that letter as answered.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll accept that, hon. member. following second reading of the bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite raised the question of pre-clearance; I believe the member for North Vancouver-Capilano raised that particularly. I think that the remarks I made in my opening remarks are perhaps the best way I can put it, Mr. Member. Until now, we have virtually forced an entrepreneur to go through all of the hoops before reaching any decision. The discretion which we're going to exercise in terms of the proximity of the licence to schools, hospitals, bad traffic situations and that sort of thing.... We can tell before he goes to all that trouble. Our discretion is not exercised based on what the municipality decides or what the referendum decides, because that's something which is separate and apart. It's based on other considerations, the majority of which we know about before he even gets started. So we think it's only fair that we should exercise that discretion where possible, in advance of him going to the trouble and expense of making all of these applications.

Excuse me while I just check my notes. I think I've answered....

MR. WALLACE: What about UBCM?

HON. MR. MAIR: Ali, yes. I don't think there has been anything recently, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, from the UBCM, although I do understand that a year or two ago they did make submissions to us concerning local control over liquor licensing. I might say that the comments that I have had from the municipalities since the press release accompanying the tabling of this bill have been generally very favourable.

There have been two exceptions. One was Mayor Goode of Delta, and I don't take his comments very seriously in the light of the content of them. But I do take seriously the comments of the mayor of Kamloops, and I'm afraid I just join issue with him. I don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me. Apart from that, the comments have been very favourable indeed.

Well, that's about it. Let's see, I commented upon the dirty mind of the second member for Vancouver East. (Laughter.) I didn't mean that, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the first member.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is he the first member? I'm sorry about that.

I think in final comment on the question of appeals coming to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reiterate what the second member for Vancouver-Burrard said. This is not etched in tablets of stone. If it doesn't work, we'll sure change it. I don't want the job, I can assure you. It's something that I can easily do without. I have enough to do and I can see that it's going to cause me an awful lot of headaches.

But I do want to make this point. If the decisions are unfair or not made in the best interests of the, licensees and the public at large, I'm sure that I'll hear about it right here in this chamber. And that's where it should be heard. The danger of having a liquor commission or a liquor appeal board - and I certainly cast no reflection on the previous liquor boards - is that sooner or later, there's a very grave danger that they'll become political in their decision-making process. So if there's going to be any suggestion of politics in a decision-making process, let it be decided in here, subject to the scrutiny of this House and subject to the disapprobation, if necessary, of this House. I am quite prepared to stand in my place and take the criticism that comes and try to answer it when it comes. But as I say, if it doesn't work, Mr. Speaker, in that case, let's try and find a better way. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 81, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 49, Companies Amendment Act, 1977.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a great many technical amendments and I quite freely admit that my own legal training and practice does not make me an expert in this particular field. I hope the House will indulge me if I substantially read my notes rather than go off the top of my head, because I want to make very sure that I have got on the record the complications that have given rise to the necessity for bringing these amendments to the House.

[ Page 4639 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Great, we'll read surrender.... (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: If I thought that the surrender was somewhat more all-encompassing than just for this particular bill, Mr. Member, I would be delighted to accept.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, to amend the Companies Act, containing a major amendment regarding corporate financing and some other consequential and housekeeping amendments.

In considering the major amendments, there are problems that we must consider in connection with public issues of preferred shares. The Act requires that the characteristics of shares issued by a British Columbia company must be set out in the documents incorporating the company or determined by special resolution of the shareholders.

The nature of the financial markets in Canada is such that in the case of public issues of preferred shares, the special rights of the shares of the issue are determined by negotiations between the underwriters and the company immediately prior to the offering of the shares to the public, based on market conditions of that time. These essential characteristics include the amount of the issue, the dividend rate and the redemption provisions.

Because the special rights attached to the shares can be determined only by the shareholders, a shareholders' meeting to create the shares must be held immediately prior to the offering. At present, the British Columbia Companies Act requires that the notice of shareholders' meetings must be set at least 21 days before the meeting. And that, Mr. Speaker, is the rub that is the problem. Both the case law and the regulations to the Companies Act require certain information to be set out in or accompanying the notice convening the meeting.

Since the shareholders must determine all the special rights attached to the shares of the issue, these should be described in the notice. But this is not possible, since these special rights are not determined until immediately prior to the meeting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have, in essence, a Catch-22 type of situation, which we're trying to overcome.

Solicitors in British Columbia, with their usual ingenuity, Mr. Speaker, have developed certain techniques in order to avoid the problem, but most solicitors who have had experience with this area will agree that at best the solutions are somewhat strained and cumbersome and may not be valid.

The British Columbia Companies Act should recognize that the directors of sophisticated companies and the investors should be able to negotiate rights attached to shares which will provide flexibility consistent with current financial practices. These problems in connection with public issues of preferred shares are not unique to British Columbia, but rather are common throughout Canada. The legal problems I have mentioned do nor arise in the principal Canadian jurisdictions in which major public companies are commonly incorporated, because their companies Acts permit procedures such as are set out in these amendments here, which will avoid the legal problems arising under the British Columbia Act.

Mr. Speaker, the bill you have before you solves these problems with regard to the public issues of preferred shares, by providing that the directors may vary, up to the date of the signing of the underwriting agreement, the number of shares and designation in series, and providing for attaching the special rights to the shares of each series, without reconvening a shareholders' meeting.

Without this amendment, 21 days notice would be required to convene the shareholders' meeting. This bill provides for a British Columbia company to use the French form of the name as well as the English form, or the combined English and French form. I am delighted that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who has exhibited such a facility in both languages, particularly French, agrees with this provision.

Outside of Canada, Mr. Speaker, a British Columbia company could use any language form of the name. This facilitates British Columbia companies operating in Quebec and outside of Canada.

Another important amendment deals with trustees and bankruptcy. For many years, Mr. Speaker, it was customary to license only individuals as trustees in bankruptcy. Major difficulties arose where an individual who was a licensed trustee became incapacitated, or died. A substitute trustee had to be appointed. In order to avoid this problem, Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of bankruptcy and the federal department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have, over the last ten years or so, encouraged the incorporation of companies which are empowered and organized to act as licensed trustees in bankruptcy. Licenses have been issued to such corporate trustees. All the major Canadian accounting firms, Mr. Speaker, have incorporated companies with the capacity to act as trustees in bankruptcy.

Corporate trustees, Mr. Speaker, are in widespread use in Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, where there is no impediment in the legislation to this form. British Columbia companies are not, and cannot, be appointed as trustees in bankruptcy, because of the present wording of the British Columbia Companies Act.

It would not be desirable, Mr. Speaker, for the federal legislation under the Bankruptcy Act to come into direct conflict with the provincial legislation under our Companies Act. In the bill you have before you, Mr. Speaker, the amendment permits British Columbia companies to act as trustees in bankruptcy,

[ Page 4640 ]

receivers, receiver-managers or liquidators. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia companies will be placed in the same position as corporations in Ontario and other provinces.

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

MR. LEVI: You know, it's been traditional in this House that the only people who engage themselves in this kind of debate are usually lawyers, and they always start off by saying that what we should really do is wait for the committee stage, and we'll deal with it then.

Having heard from the minister, who has the benefit of legal training - and I have the advantage of not having any legal training - I'm going to see if I can launch into this thing.

For some time, in a previous debate, I raised the issue of the plight of the small shareholder. Now in this particular one of the amendments that the minister is putting before the House, there is the question of doing something that is expeditious; that is, in order for the company to operate, or the corporation, it would be better to amend it this way. It relates to preferred shares.

I would remind the minister that there has been a case, which is no longer before the courts, which got into some discussion about small shareholders who had what were characterized as preferential shares, but not exactly. The Al Steel case was where a number of small shareholders were dissatisfied with the amount of money that was reached as to the value of the shares. The thing was, that in order for them to be able to get some form of redress, they spent almost $11,000 going through the courts. There were about five of them; they were successful at the Supreme Court level and then lost out in the Court of Appeal level. I don't think they've gone on to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Recently, there has been much more discussion generally, in Canada and in the community, about the role of corporations, and particularly the role of small shareholders - that is, if they have any kind of role at all. There is, of course, the other issue of making this particular Act understandable to the general community, and that becomes very, very difficult. That's one of the real problems, because we are told by the people who support very strongly the private enterprise system that we need corporations and we need people to invest. It's probably one of the most complicated areas in which the public becomes involved as small shareholders, yet they don't really understand what's going on in a general way.

More and more it's becoming clear, as a result of inquiries that have gone on in the United States, that there's a very serious need to take a very close look at our Companies Act or the Canada Corporations Act, in respect, first of all, to making it understandable and then ensuring that there are safeguards for small shareholders, and not the kind of safeguards whereby they want to get some kind of redress. They are going to have to spend an enormous amount of money to have a determination by the court.

[Mr. Veitch. in the chair. ]

Now recently in the House I asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) a question in relation to the small shareholders and their role in the area of being consulted about certain actions that have taken place by corporations. I particularly had in mind at that time MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. Canadian Forest Products have recently been involved in a number of discussions in the public press about a decision that was made in respect to an unauthorized payment. As a matter of fact, MacMillan Bloedel was also involved in a series of unauthorized payments, albeit not in Canada. Apparently they stressed that those payment were made offshore.

Now in the case of MacMillan Bloedel, we had no way of knowing in this province or in this country just exactly what was going on. We don't have the kind of disclosure laws that first of all are in the interest of the general public, but which are particularly in the interests of small shareholders. It only came about as a result of a filing of a document in the United States under the Securities Exchange Commission regulations - form 10K - where they had to make certain declarations. In this process, they admitted to making a series of unauthorized payments.

Recently, Canadian Forest Products has been involved in a debacle with the Reed corporation as a result of an unauthorized payment made to Lord Ryder in England, who was formerly a member of the board on the international parent company. The company facilitated what was characterized as an unauthorized payment.

Now as it happens, Canadian Forest Products is a private corporation. However, there is an interest in the public. After all, they are, I think, the largest private corporation in the forest industry in British Columbia and we as taxpayers have to have some interest and concern in the way that company is run, particularly in relation to MacMillan Bloedel. But we don't have the kind of disclosure legislation that is needed so that we can know what is going on and we can be assured that shareholders - particularly small shareholders - are being protected.

Now I want to turn for a minute to another aspect of the Companies Act, which also involves what I think is a very serious abuse. Again I raised recently the issue of what's called D & V Janitorial services of Vancouver. Now what I want to say there is not to go into the details of the problems of the ripoff that's been going on there, but more particularly to discuss

[ Page 4641 ]

the ease with which people can form companies in this province. I have no desire to restrict the formation of companies. If people want to do that, that's fine. But what we do find is that because of the law - because it's available to them - we find a small group of people incorporating a number of companies all doing the same kind of function.

I have in mind the deal connected with D & V Janitorial and this kind of thing. That's a problem, because we are not so much concerned there with the small shareholders, but rather with the people who have become victims of the kind of propositions that are made through these companies. These companies are authorized; they have directors; they make certain propositions to people. Perhaps when the minister is closing debate, he might be able to give me an answer on the question I asked him some time ago about D & V Janitorial, just in respect to the Trade Practices Act action.

Obviously we're not going to get it in this particular piece of legislation we have before us, but we do have to have in this province sometime, hopefully, in the not too distant future, the kind of realistic inquiry, whether it's done by a legislative committee.... It can be done by the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice, or by a specially formed committee, in which we have to make it possible for people in this province to have frank discussion before a committee. As I said once in another speech, I'm not anxious to have royal commissions, because when you have royal commissions, everybody goes there with a lawyer. I would much sooner see it where people come unencumbered, in most ways, by a lawyer and they are able to actually say what they mean. I think that's important.

You may recall that one of the things that came out in the Grizzly Valley inquiry was that a small shareholder wrote a letter to the commissioner. He said that he had been a long-time shareholder in this company - I think something like 16 years - and he started out with around 4,000 shares. Because of the various decisions by the number of companies where the stock was rolled back, he finally wound up with equal to about 250 shares. He was particularly annoyed at the time because the president of Cheyenne Pete had something like 480,000 shares. He had a very good point - he wanted to know who was protecting his interests, and that is important.

I have to keep saying it: this is a government that stresses the importance of free enterprise. If you're going to deal with free enterprise you have to talk a little about fair play, particularly for the small shareholder. We are dealing here with a very complicated process in relation to some preferential shares. Nevertheless we have to be concerned, constantly keeping in front of us the fact that it's the small shareholders who make up the bulk of the investment action. We are told that by studies that have taken place in the United States. It may very well be that now the minister has got his capital market study off the ground we'll be able to find out from that study just who makes up the investment market. Do the small people play a very big role? If they do in fact play as big a role here as they do everywhere else, then we're going to have to do something about the legislation, particularly the Companies Act. We're going to have to have protection for the small shareholder and we're going to have to deal with the question of disclosure.

In 1976 my colleague from Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) put in a private member's bill in respect to a corporate disclosure Act, in which he made some recommendations about how it might be dealt with, particularly in relation to the name of the firm, what its function is and who is on their board of directors.

For those people who have been involved in doing some kind of corporate research, there are some difficulties because there were some changes made in the Companies Act in 1973 which make it more difficult for people to get the information unless they are prepared to go to the site of the particular registered office. I understand from discussions with the minister and statements that he's made that there is an attempt to put everything on microfilm and get the thing into shape. Presumably then things will be much more accessible to the public.

That's another question of guaranteeing for the small shareholder not only disclosure but the access to information. It is important for people to be able to get the information to understand exactly what is going on, because this is the thing that makes up the interstices of our economy.

This is not the time, Mr. Chairman, nor is it the bill at the moment.... We've already had a new Companies Act written in 1973. Having looked at it I wasn't terribly impressed that they really made great strides in rewriting it in 1973. After reading it I thought it had been written in 1933, and I understand that there hadn't been any significant revision to the Companies Act for about 40 years.

In this day and age we look forward to a very significant rewriting of the Companies Act, in plain English, that would be helpful not only to me, but also to the minister apparently. And that's important too; he has to administer the Act. There has to be a whole different thrust.

I agree that there are a great number of technicalities in the Companies Act, but there is also a need to spell out a number of specific responsibilities of boards of directors, both to the major shareholders and to the small shareholders. We can speak about it more knowledgeably after we get the report from the minister on the capital market study. We'll have a much better understanding of just what role the people play in, it.

[ Page 4642 ]

We will support the bill; it is technical and that's all it is.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the second member from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) on the question of the D & V case and to advise him that we have indeed intervened under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act and we are now involved in that case. I'm indebted to him for bringing the matter to my attention in the first instance.

I think many of the member's remarks were, by his own admission, directed more towards either securities legislation or things that we hope to discover by reason of the capital-market study which is now ongoing, and ongoing in a very meaningful way. We do hope to have as a result of that study, without trying to predict what's going to be the outcome, sufficient findings to enable us to bring in great changes in both the securities legislation and companies legislation. Like the member in 1973, 1 was anything but overwhelmed by the Companies Act as it came in. I took part in many of the study sessions that preceded that in 1971 and 1972. The problem, of course, is that when you pass a statute -and I don't mean this critically; I mean this just as a matter of fact - that has such far-reaching changes and then you allow those changes to take root, sink in, and have people act upon those changes, you create a whole new situation which is very difficult to retreat from.

We now have records offices all over British Columbia. There's nothing wrong with a person having an active company in Victoria and having his records office in Pouce Coupe, thus making it impossible for people who deal with him to actually get to the site of where his records are.

A lot of these things have caused myself, and my ministry, a great deal of concern. I think those, along with other matters that the member has raised, are probably best left until we have received some input from the capital-market study and have had a better chance to look at the matter from that perspective.

I don't think there was anything else. Having seen no indication that I have overlooked anything, Mr. Speaker, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Companies Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Second reading of Bill 73, , Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL ACT

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce Bill 73, the Mineral Act, which replaces the old Mineral Act. It has been made necessary because of the many revisions to the former Act and the need to clarify and update many of the requirements under the Act.

The Act was prepared with a view to ensuring a favourable climate for investment in the mineral resource of our province. Many of the sections in the former Act were obscure, difficult to interpret, and did not meet the needs of the mineral industry in 1977 and beyond. This new Act has clarified many of these obscure sections and has introduced new principles under which the mining industry can expand and grow under a private-enterprise government. One of the major features of this bill is to allow free miners to obtain strong and secure title to minerals and to clearly spell out the rules under which mining operations may be initiated in the province.

One principle of this bill is the removal of the rental fee which was imposed on the mining industry without notice and against the wishes of the officials of this ministry. This arbitrary action on the part of this former socialist government caused the forfeiture of many thousands of mineral claims held by small prospectors throughout British Columbia. It also arbitrarily destroyed the work credits that were in place on many of the mineral claims involved.

Limited production on mineral claims will be allowed without the necessity of a limited production permit and full production can be established after a legal survey has been undertaken. Another aspect of this legislation is the reintroduction, in a limited way, of the former two-post staking system for mineral claims. This should be of great benefit to the small prospectors in the province.

The new Act also makes provisions for appeals to the Lieutenant-Governor against the determination of the minister on the uses of surface rights.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And I might say that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources will not be sitting on that committee. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will bring stability and encouragement to the development of our British Columbia mineral resource. I move second reading.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, this is generally housekeeping legislation, with one exception. That's the principle that no work should have to be done on a lease before it can go into partial or full production. That is the Howe Street

[ Page 4643 ]

segment of this bill, because that allows the penny-stock sellers to do what they want. That's all that that section does. It isn't any help to the mining industry, because the mining industry wouldn't mind meeting the obligations that were in this section before it was amended, under the old principle put in by the former administration. But other than that section, the bill is basically housekeeping and bringing mining legislation up to date, as far as I can see, except for that one section.

There is no longer a requirement to hold a mining lease before going into full production. Why not? I mean, if you're going into production, what's wrong with having a lease? There's nothing wrong with that at all. But it is a bit of a hindrance when you don't plan on going into full production or into full production for very long. That's where the hindrance comes in.

. So there was nothing wrong in the principle that was established prior to this amendment in this legislation. It makes it a little easier for penny-stock promoters to be just that, and I don't see where it holds down the legitimate mining industry in any way at all.

So it isn't a section that we will vehemently oppose, but we would like to point out that all it does is make it a little easier for penny-stock promoters to promote their stock and for the purchasers of that stock not to have the fullest guarantee that it is indeed a legitimate endeavour. I don't think if would do any harm at all to leave that section the way it was, and it doesn't do a great deal of harm to change it. But possibly, in third reading, we'll be taking a little longer look at the section. Maybe by that time, Mr. Chairman, the minister himself will have had a change of heart and will make it a little more difficult for people to be swindled by phony stock promoters, not the legitimate ones.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is not one that can be easily debated in second reading. It's one that is more easily debated in committee, because there are so many different principles in the bill. I'll be glad to deal with the issue that is raised by the member for Prince Rupert at the appropriate time in the committee stage.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 73, Mineral Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Committee on Bill 32.

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the list given to us stated Bill 77, Heritage Conservation Act. Now we have moved on to Bill 32 and our lead-off speaker is not here, expecting there to be another bill in between. Could the House Leader tell us what happened to Bill 77?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I made a mistake. I'm sorry. It should be.... We don't have our speaker here either. (Laughter.)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, it was a mistake, but I notice the minister is not in the House in any event. I wonder if the opposition would just give us the okay to go to this bill in committee. We'll report progress and I'll go find the minister.

MRS. DAILLY: Can we just get our speaker in? All right. Thank you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if it would be easier to take a two-minute recess and nobody leave their seats, we'll go and find the minister right now. I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just noticed that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is here and I'm here. Could we get on to Bill 65?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a valid point of order at this time.

MS. BROWN: Aw, shucks!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is in order, we will declare a short recess for two minutes until the business is settled,

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 77.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, this bill is intended to encourage and facilitate the protection and

[ Page 4644 ]

conservation of heritage property in the province. This includes buildings, sites and occasionally objects of historic, archaeological, palaeontological - which is to say fossils - architectural and scenic significance. The bill consolidates and streamlines all legislation on the subject in one statute and under one minister for the first time.

The key feature of the bill is the establishment of a British Columbia heritage trust to assist communities and organizations concerned with heritage conservation. These two measures taken together given recognition to the rapid growth in number of individuals, groups and communities across the province who are concerned about the preservation of our heritage.

In the past our citizens have struggled to find ways of preserving our heritage with few resources at their disposal. There are a number of small communities, for example, with extensive heritage content which, if preserved and enhanced, can play a vital role in their cultural and economic well-being. Such communities often lack the special expertise and financial capacity to realize this potential, however. When concerned groups have approached the provincial government for assistance in such matters, they have been passed from one department to the next, often for months, ultimately to find that there is little available in the way of information or funds.

Reorganization of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation in recent months to bring together related elements from the ministries of the Provincial Secretary, Municipal Affairs and Public Works, as well as this ministry, was an important first step in overcoming this problem. Passage of this bill is the next vital step towards improved conservation efforts.

Establishment of the Heritage Trust under part 4 of this bill will provide a valuable resource to the communities of the province. The Trust will provide a repository of information on the financial, legal, and technical aspects of heritage conservation to these various organizations. As well, the Trust will have the power to acquire and dispose of property, provide loans and grants and receive donations and bequests for its purposes.

This bill also provides for the streamlining of municipal heritage efforts hitherto provided for under section 7 (14) (a) of the Municipal Act. In particular, the municipal councils, for the purpose of protecting heritage properties and the process of designating to that end, will no longer require the approval of the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council for designation. Council may order a halt to any work on a potential heritage site for up to 90 days, to permit a review and passage of a designation bylaw.

On the other hand, councils are now required to notify an affected owner prior to the adoption of such a bylaw and to provide for objections to be heard. It's further provided in this bill that by by law, a council may compensate an owner for loss arising out of designation by way of a grant, loan, tax relief or otherwise. This is very important, inasmuch as designation otherwise can be tantamount to confiscation of property rights and values.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The third area in which this bill is significant is the streamlining of the language associated with regulation of provincial heritage sites, formerly referred to as historic or archaeological sites under the old Historic and Archaeological Sites Act.

Lastly, this bill provides for some changes in the law respecting easements and covenants so as to assist heritage preservation by way of negotiated agreements with owners. Herein lies a fundamental concern. In fact, it's a concern which underlies the whole of the legislation, which is recognition that if we are to undertake the preservation of more than a token amount of the province's heritage, we must recognize the limitations on direct public intervention. In fact, the great majority of the province's heritage buildings and sites are in private ownership and are likely to remain thus. Therefore, the key to heritage preservation is the question of co-operation with private owners, with assistance to them, particularly by way of advice.

A private owner may have every wish to preserve some heritage aspect of his property and to share that with future generations of British Columbians, but he may not know precisely what ought to be preserved or how to go about it in technical terms. It is in this whole area of co-operation with private owners that the greatest advances can be made towards the preservation of the province's heritage buildings and sites for future generations.

With those brief remarks, I would conclude that I believe this legislation will constitute a major step forward in the heritage conservation field in this province. I have already had remarks from several other jurisdictions in Canada that this would mark the most advanced and effective legislation of its type known to them in Canada. Mr. Speaker, if I can find the appropriate wording here, I move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker. The official opposition welcomes the opportunity to debate this bill and to first of all state, flat outright, that we support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NICOLSON: I was interested to hear the minister refer to sites of palaeontological interest. It put me in mind of a couple of experiences. I was quite shocked one time in the East Kootenay, near

[ Page 4645 ]

Fort Steele, to come upon a fossil area where trilobite samples are very prevalent and to find there was absolutely nothing to protect the site. People I guess were looking, as I was, for a sample of the trilobite -their own real sample which they found out in the natural area. Yet if people were to continue to exploit an area to that extent and if it were not protected, it would cease to be of any significance. Also, of course, I did have the experience of seeing the footprints of dinosaurs in the site of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam prior to its construction and flooding, and that again brings to mind the importance of protecting this type of site.

I am pleased to see that the minister has initiated a study in the town of Nelson. Indeed, in the Kootenay area we do have several small towns which have a great deal of heritage value. Other towns nearby, such as Grand Forks and Greenwood, also have some very valuable areas.

In terms also of sites outside of towns and cities that could have some heritage interest, I would commend to the interest of the minister an area for which he also has some other responsibility, and that is the Fry Creek canyon. There is a trail there. Once again rumours are flying that there are pressures from the Forests ministry to build a road up Fry Creek canyon in order to get access to an area for logging. While it isn't disputed that a certain drainage area should be logged, the locations of roads or the method of getting logs out of that area are disputed. The Fry Creek canyon is a heritage. It is the one last undisturbed major creek area on Kootenay Lake. It is in the riding of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. It has a very unique canyon trail which goes up it. A great deal was spent to restore this trail just recently. There is a sense of history there. One can feel the energy of the people who at one time pioneered this creek up the canyon, and it is the last remaining heritage of what things were like prior to the turn of the century on Kootenay Lake, when people used to travel over the Purcell Mountains to get from the East to West Kootenay.

Mr. Speaker, if I see a weakness in the bill, I think that one of the concerns would be certainly that in some instances when a building or a property is classified as a heritage site or an archaeological site its value might actually be enhanced. It could actually experience an appreciation of value. But in other instances it could have the opposite effect; there could be depreciation of value. This is recognized in the bill where the decision can be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for instance, in the case of something determined by the minister outside of municipal jurisdictions to be of significance. There is a provision for compensation but it is the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the decision is final.

I take the position that it would be more appropriate - perhaps inefficient, but more appropriate - to make the provisions along the lines of the Arbitration Act and to take the decision out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, for two reasons. One would be that it would place the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - the cabinet - in the position that where indeed a value of a property might appear to the public to have actually appreciated, they might take the opposite view and decide that compensation should be paid. The amount of compensation, I think, would leave cabinet open to attack that they might be favouring friends. They will have no real control over their friends in terms of who may or may not acquire a property or presently be the owners of property that might be deemed to be heritage properties.

I think that it leaves the cabinet in an unfair position where they could be attacked in terms of giving too much compensation - giving any compensation, indeed - when in fact it might be public opinion expressed by members of the opposition or expressed by the media that indeed the designation might have enhanced rather than depreciated the value of the property. I wouldn't want to be in that position, Mr. Speaker, of having to expose myself to such an attack. I think it would be better if this were to be referred to arbitration.

Also in the case where a municipality makes such a designation, I think we want to encourage municipalities to make these decisions and money should not be a deterrent. I suppose that the Heritage Trust could make some grants to assist municipalities. We wouldn't want them to do it indiscriminately. There would have to be perhaps some deterrent to municipalities just designating absolutely everything, so it would have to be done carefully and with a great deal of consideration. Municipalities might be expected to make some compensation, but I think they should also be assisted in that. It is possible, I suppose, under the terms of the trust.

What I would like to make as a main point.... I don't see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) here, or the Premier, but perhaps some members of the treasury bench will have to realize that this bill would have a great deal more impact. In fact this bill might be mere window-dressing and be of very little practical significance if there are not the adequate funds appropriated for the implementation of this bill. Because certainly the trust is going to need funds. In fact, normally when one talks of a trust, one thinks of a trust fund. So there should be a companion bill which might vote a perpetual fund from which interest payments can be drawn. In the old days, that's the way the Social Credit government used to do things, Mr. Speaker. They could do that or they could make a special appropriation from consolidated revenue by an Act of this Legislature, and certain amounts could be appropriated.

[ Page 4646 ]

I would like the minister, in closing second reading, to give this House some idea of what he feels would be the amount of money needed for this year, but not necessarily as a perpetual fund. Just how much money would you need? Then we could extrapolate back. Do we have to have $1 million dollars for this programme to work in a one-year period, or can this programme get by with a couple of hundred thousand dollars? Can it get by with $10 million? In fact, with the things that are presently being pursued, how much money is required? It can be a very nice piece of legislation to have on the books, and very commendable, but without any financial assistance and without Treasury Board, we would certainly be spending our time very inefficiently debating this bill.

I would like to hear from the minister in terms of what he would see as the annual requirements in terms of funding for this starting up this year, which will be just a partial year, and what he would anticipate next year and maybe in the next couple of years. As we would imagine, things will start to roll, studies will start to flow, recommendations will start to be made, and that's when the financial expense would take place - after certain recommendations have been made. The studies will be rather cheap, as compared to when it comes time to implement certain studies.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I believe this to be a very good bill and I'm happy to support it. I just want ' to find out one or two of the ways in which the minister sees the bill working. I was delighted with the minister's introductory comments, which said that when he recognizes that a property is designated, it should not amount to confiscation of the property from the owner.

I just want to say that one of the big advantages of the bill is the bringing together of all of the existing legislation plus the additional initiative of setting up of the Heritage Trust. Because we've been functioning, as the minister pointed out, with a section of the Municipal Act - I think 714 (a) . In Oak Bay, the council has always taken the position that no designation should ever be carried out without the agreement of the owner. But previously this was not necessarily the case, It was not incumbent upon the council always to have the agreement of the owner.

While it makes a great deal of sense to preserve our heritage and to preserve buildings of great historic significance, this should not be done at the expense of any individual - not just the financial expense of an individual, but the wider implications regarding the rights of that individual, for example, to privacy. One of the problems that arose in Oak Bay was when the oldest home in Oak Bay was designated a heritage home. The owners spent a great deal of their time trying to deal with people peering through their window and coming up their front path and knocking on their door at all times of the day and night. It became almost part of the tourist trip around the area to take a trip to this home. So it isn't just a question of money. There's a question of invasion of privacy and much of the inconvenience that can follow from the designation. In that regard, the bill, as the minister has pointed out, allows the municipality to pay compensation.

I wonder, in winding up second reading, if the minister could explain how he sees the allocation of compensation in relation to the source of the money. Is that money simply to come from the budget of the municipality? We can perhaps do this in more detail in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, but in general terms, is it the minister's understanding that the section entitled "Heritage Fund" is so worded that the Heritage Fund can provide the money to the municipality if it decides to designate a property?

The minister, I think, quite rightly, has stressed the value there would be in encouraging private donations, and private allocation of property or money, in order to build up a stock of heritage buildings. Where is this money to come from in the first place? If compensation is to be paid by a municipality, it's my impression that municipalities, are already sufficiently concerned about budgeting for basic essential services, such as schools in the area, sewage disposal, road development, street lighting and so on. I cannot see many municipalities designating buildings, however worthwhile, if the municipality itself is stuck with a bill for $100,000 or whatever it might be depending, obviously, on the value of the property. That, I think, is crucial.

The other question that I'd like to ask the minister is whether the legislation will make it plain to municipalities that designation of a building should not preclude it being used for a commercial purpose. Once again, of course, trying to use a designated building for a commercial purpose may be a distinct disadvantage to the operators, or it might be an advantage.

Where this is a disadvantage, I wonder if the minister would just touch on his understanding of how the owner of such a commercial enterprise might or might not be compensated. If compensated, by whom, and from where does the money come? Is it the municipality? Or does the municipality in turn apply to the Heritage Fund? Maybe I'm trying to be too specific at this point, but I would like a general outline of how the source of the money is decided, the procedure by which the municipality receives funding, and whether that funding be whole or in part.

It may well be that the minister envisions a cost-sharing approach whereby the municipality itself has to put up at least some of the funding to compensate the owner of the designated property.

[ Page 4647 ]

1 wanted to finish on the note of the example that has been set in the United Kingdom where they have, as the minister well knows, a very large trust, which, of course, has been in existence for many years. In British Columbia we're just getting into it in a smaller way. Nevertheless there have to be adequate funds available. While we expect and hope that private donations and bequests will help greatly, in England we have the example of stately homes having to be opened up, and some of the most crass commercialism practised in order to keep them in a sound state of repair. We have that possibility facing us in British Columbia, not that we have the same kind of stately homes, perhaps. Does the government feel that the Heritage Fund will be in a position, perhaps years down the road, to ensure that heritage buildings are not only preserved but with some dignity and style which might not be possible if it has to function as a commercial enterprise, just to maintain its own economic survival?

If we take the example of England where some of the stately homes are surviving because of the bus tours and trinkets and the commercialism, I suppose that's better than losing the stately home altogether. Nevertheless, we should be able to learn from the example in Britain, In winding up the debate, I wonder if the minister could comment upon the role of the Heritage Fund in providing funds and, in very general terms, what sum of money he envisages would be a minimum in getting the Heritage Fund off to a credible and reasonable start. Obviously, if the fund is not at least of a sufficient size in the first year or two, the whole potential in this bill might be substantially threatened.

MR. LAUK: My approach to you quietly while the member for Oak Bay was speaking, as all members should know, had nothing to do with my being recognized next.

Mr. Speaker, supporting the comments of the member for Nelson-Creston, in our support of this bill, I'd like to add that I think it's a well-drafted bill, a considerate bill. It shows what a minister can do who thoughtfully sits back and takes his time and considers the problem. There"s much more to do than just that in that portfolio, but let's give credit where credit is due; and certainly I'm very interested in this statute. I think it's drafted in such a way that we can take it seriously. It has the teeth in it, it has the provision for funding, and there are only minor problems that we might see and take exception to, but in substance it's a serious bill and we certainly take it seriously.

I wish to raise an example of where it can be used. The first example . . . and I was delighted to see at the end of the bill that you thoughtfully included this bill being enforceable against the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

1 say against advisedly because B.C. Hydro is a giant, and we have seen that the Minister of Transport and Communications and Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) has no control Over B.C. Hydro. We've heard how the Premier has indicated that he has no control Over B.C. Hydro. And we have this brave little minister who is now saying that this Heritage Act is enforceable against B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro has recently purchased the Dawson School site in downtown city of Vancouver - $6.4 million or something like that. I know that I am jumping the gun, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I don't trust B.C. Hydro to deal with that land in a sensitive way. But I say so with some confidence because of past experience with that monolithic corporation. It is insensitive to human needs. It is a scientific giant, a creature of the scientific era that we're living in, that completely disregards the feelings and the lifestyles of people around them. So the minister is well advised to include this section as being operative against B.C. Hydro. It gives us an opportunity too, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the people of British Columbia from time to time that most statutes do not apply against B.C. Hydro. They simply do not apply unless specifically included, as the minister so thoughtfully has done.

I encourage the minister to look carefully at the Dawson School site. I ask him under the provisions of the statute to carry out a survey as soon as he is able, as soon as this thing is in place. Don't take my word for it; go and visit this site. It's an old building; it was constructed many, many years ago. It has a lot of history involved. Architecturally, of course, it's not the greatest. But this is not Rome or Paris; this is Vancouver, and this is Victoria in British Columbia, and you don't get a Rattenbury circulating around everywhere you go. The Attorney-General knows that. There are very few well-designed buildings of real age in this province, because we were a very sparsely populated province 100 years ago, 80 years ago, and so on. The only distinguished structures are the parliament buildings and other buildings designed by Rattenbury. Now this is one area that can be preserved.

I'm very concerned that B.C. Hydro has purchased this land. There was a great battle in 1973-74 to keep the Dawson School site from being sold by the school board we have in Vancouver. This is one way that we can control the situation. The municipality has a heritage advisory board already. And that heritage advisory board has already recommended that for designation. I would ask the minister to seriously look at that. You've got a battle on your hands because you've got this monolithic corporation that probably wants to make it into a parking lot. It's right next to the B.C. Hydro building, and this has encouraged me to think that they're going to rip down these old schools that are 80, 90,100 years old

[ Page 4648 ]

that could be refurbished and used for good public service and asphalt it and put a parking lot there. Now they haven't said so, but what else does B.C. Hydro want it for? New office space? I doubt it. They have that tower. NDP Headquarters? That's a good public service; we could remodel it.

I really do encourage the minister to have a site survey - not take my word for it - and see what can be done with that building. Bob Bonner is not known as an expert in architecture, and there are rumours that he once said that he would rip down St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome and put up a quonset hut because it sheds the water better. It's only a rumour but a man with that kind of an attitude is very dangerous -a man who is now the chief executive officer of B.C. Hydro owning the Dawson School site. We wait with interest. But if this Dawson School site will be one of the first in Vancouver ... the minister will act quickly on it.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate. As someone said, this is not the most monumental bill of this session but he was pleased with it. I think, in the long term, this will be one of the monumental bills of this session.

MR. LAUK: It's a monumental bill.

MR. GIBSON: That's what it's about.

MRS. JORDAN: Right. One wonders, and certainly I feared, along with many people, for the identity and the distinctiveness of our communities throughout British Columbia. I think many of us are concerned that in the future we will not be able to recognize or have any reason to appreciate our British Columbia cities. There are some around the province, such as Victoria, Osoyoos, Kimberley, who have made a valiant effort if not in preserving the past, then certainly in trying to incorporate some of the past with a distinctive character for today and the future.

To a great degree, we've been destroying those elements that give our part of British Columbia its character and its individualness. It has been an attraction in terms of people wanting to live here, and it has been very much an attraction in parts of our tourist development. We don't want to lose the big-sky effect of the Peace River and the type of building that that attracted " in the past, or the type of recreational areas, or historic activities that took place there, any more than in Victoria we want to see it lose its Victorian flavour. Certainly in the community where our family lives, in Vernon, we've very sadly seen this happen. In spite of long-term planning and great discussions about planning the future of Vernon that is called "the year 2000, " we are seeing the character of the community literally destroyed. This bill, and the whole concept of heritage conservation, I feel, will not only provide avenues for preservation, but also act as a stimulant for people around the province - to councils - and make us much more aware of the need to interest ourselves in these activities. Of course, now there are avenues to put into practical application many individual ideas, or group ideas, that can be incorporated to preserve this type of heritage.

I feel a little stimulated on the basis of the member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace's) questions, which are very significant, I think, in terms of initial financing. There were also the questions from the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . I think we have to recognize, in seeking some sort of sound, initial funding, that this opens an avenue that has not yet existed in British Columbia in terms of drawing in private enterprise and the private individual. I feel that we have to look more to the potential of that type of financial commitment than to total tax dollars.

I happened to read an article - I'm sure some of you did also - on: "How Interested Is The Government In You?" "In terms of taxation, if you think they're taxing the rich, you're right, but if you're earning $12,000 a year, you're considered rich." If you analyse what they say, they point out that if you're making $12,000 to $15,000 a year, essentially you'll be paying approximately 33.3 per cent tax on your taxable income. This means that if you can contribute on a sustaining basis, or a one-shot basis, to an established heritage fund, either at the provincial level or at the municipal level, you could in fact be returning 33 cents on every dollar that you donated to your own community. In other words, it would be a tax saving on that income basis of 33 cents per dollar. The individual would be contributing approximately 60-odd cents on a donation basis.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is an avenue that is now open and should be vigorously pursued - and I'm sure it will be - by the minister and his ministry. We have to negotiate with Revenue Canada and the Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia to see that sustaining donations - perhaps even $10 a year - by an individual to his or her local heritage and conservation fund is in fact income tax deductible. Naturally when we think in terms of larger sums, one has to consider estates, and one has to consider larger dedications, but there is an avenue there by which the citizens themselves will be committed through interest, which is vitally important in this type of programme, and where dollars can be raised at the local level. Everyone likes to achieve a degree of satisfaction in keeping as many dollars as they can from Revenue Canada and the province of British Columbia. This is a way they can do it and help themselves and also help the province.

[ Page 4649 ]

In replying, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will make clear to us that he intends to pursue this matter vigorously and that we can accomplish these negotiations within a short period of time - perhaps for the next income tax year.

Those of you who were in the House some time ago will recall a vigorous debate we had when the NDP government brought hi some changes to a heritage conservation, Many of them were very good, but my concern at that time was they did enshrine in the Municipal Act, under section 714 (A) (1) and (7) , the opportunity for municipalities to designate a trail, a piece of land, or a building as an historic site or a heritage site without any form of compensation. This has been changed, and I am very pleased the minister has done this. I think he should be commended. Again, this doesn't mean there's going to be limited funds, but there is a consciousness that what we are doing is, in fact, designating other people's property to the best public interest.

In the past, there has been conflict between an individual's desire for the use of his property and his neighbours', or perhaps neighbours 400 miles away who are more conscious of the value of that property to the public interests than the local community. It has often led to conflict between individuals and municipal councils because of this desire to preserve some of the past but an inability through legislation to have the proper structure with which to do it.

I'm pleased, without going into the details of this section, that the minister has also included a time limit, in two instances, for discussions with an individual. If their plans for a building are interrupted, there is a time limit. This will force both parties to come to grips with the realities of what is being done. The delays in the past have been very costly, often to individuals, often to municipalities and sometimes to families who have lived for years in what is in fact a piece of land or a building of historic significance. They have been frozen on it; they couldn't sell out and it's meant a great deal of personal sacrifice to that family.

With the new changes in the legislation, there are now avenues through which this can be overcome. I would expect to see a great deal less acrimony than there has been in the past. The acrimony has been a fear of confiscation of a person's rights rather than anything that would negate the public interest in their properties.

It should be hoped that municipal councils and the Land Commission, in reviewing the new legislation, will be prepared to make some adjustments in. their zoning plans. I think one of the significant things that we have to bring to the fore in our own thinking is that not all heritage should be still or silent or for viewing. I was most impressed when we went to Quebec the first time to see old Quebec. Old homes and the whole character of the past had been brought into the 1950s, 60s and 70s in a living manner. The buildings are used. They are living every day and yet they still portray that flavour of the past and they still serve as a very useful educational function.

I would hope that in adopting this new awareness in British Columbia, we will think more in terms of living history, usable history. I would agree with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that we don't want to go to gimmicks and garbles, but I do believe we don't want to create a vacuum type of history, we want to see it as a part of our life. Perhaps this generation will put its imprint on that part of the history that it is living, and the economics of it will in part assist that type of development. It would be impossible for the taxpayer of British Columbia to put enough money aside to support all the historically significant factors in British Columbia that we'd like to have.

The last point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, refers back to Christ Church Cathedral. Had this bill been in place when that debate took place and we nearly lost a very significant part of our history in British Columbia, there wouldn't have been the debate that lingers even today.

The problem we had there was separating the church's interest, the architectural interest and the public interest. There was no real independent body that could take a position and point out that at the rate we were going, we were literally destroying any semblance of past in the downtown core of Vancouver. We had audaciously taken it upon ourselves as a generation to make our imprint of about 20 years of architecture in that vital core of the downtown area.

Another problem we ran into was that there was not room in the legislation for a building such as Christ Church Cathedral. It wasn't technically qualified and it wasn't economically feasible. What we were forgetting was that it was the heritage of Vancouver that was enshrined in that building; the lifestyle of the people of those days. The evolution of Vancouver for a very long period is symbolized in Christ Church Cathedral.

I am pleased that the minister has made the definitions in this bill very broad. This allows for this concept of heritage. It allows for the recognition that the activity that took place, perhaps in a very simple, uninspiring building as far as architecture is concerned, is very much a part of the history of that area and this province.

It may be an outdoor area that is significant. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) mentioned B.C. Hydro. I must call Shuswap Falls to the House's attention which most of you don't really know about, although I think the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) does. This is a small power station. Adjacent to that power station was a log assembly hall built by the workers who

[ Page 4650 ]

built that dam during the Depression. It was used for the upper brass to have their picnics although they sometimes condescended to invite the workers. Around the hall were lovely picnic grounds and a little tea house. Architecturally you couldn't justify it but you could have justified the preservation of that area on the basis of the activities and the people involved in the construction and the use of that hall and tea house. Only last month I wrote again to Hydro to ask if they would reappraise the situation and at least develop a recreational area for the people in keeping with the history of that site.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I feel that we must also recognize that in British Columbia, as we look to new avenues of secondary cash flow, a movement away from the traditional basis of our economy, heritage is a major factor. If this bill stimulates the interest that the government feels it will, we will not only see the historic advantages, but we will see the creation of new avenues of employment for older and younger people. We will see a creation of jobs through renovations and the recycling of many interest centres in the province. I would like to commend the minister for bringing it forward. I know it isn't etched in stone and he's prepared to make changes as time goes on and it is proven necessary. It's a fine bill and I'm proud to support it. I'm proud our government came to grips with this fragmented situation and brought it into a comprehensive bill that people can understand.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just respond briefly to the kind of remarks of the several members who spoke on this bill.

First of all, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) expressed concern about the fact that both the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and a municipal council could, in his view, make a final and binding decision arbitrarily as to the question of compensation for a loss arising out of designation.

As was pointed out by the member for North Okanagan, in fact, section 7 (14) (a) , which was introduced by the former government, expressly prohibited any compensation on the part of the municipality arising out of designation. Certainly, we are trying to move away from that principle as the member for Nelson-Creston urged us to do. In fact, designation can have deleterious effects on the values of private property.

I would stress that it is my outlook for the future that rather than have a process whereby designation takes place followed by negotiation of compensation by parties under duress, instead, through the resources of the Heritage Trust and the two levels of government generally, covenants or easements be negotiated and. purchased from private owners, to have the same effect of securing the preservation of a heritage resource. These have the same effect as designation and in some respects are more satisfactory in that all the cards are on the table in advance, rather than an after-the-fact compensation.

The question from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as to how compensation would proceed in the event that the designation procedure is used -would it rely on the present municipal budget exclusively or would there be other sources? In the first instance, the Concept is to provide maximum flexibility to a municipality by way of arranging compensation. It can involve certain future concessions in terms of property taxation. As well, I would certainly expect that the Heritage Trust would assist. I would not expect the Trust to take up all of the responsibility. I'm sure the members can anticipate that certain municipalities would be included to designate every place in town, not having any financial responsibility following that.

Generally, I believe the money need is exaggerated in this whole field, and I'm speaking from personal experience here. There are only limited circumstances where, in fact, designation has a serious effect. In fact, residences that are zoned as such have increased in value from designation and there are numerous examples of that, not only here but in various designations.

Where zoning will not permit a substantially larger building to be built than that which already exists, it has been clearly established from experience in the private sector that it is economically advantageous to recycle that building rather than replace it with roughly the same floor space now. So the problem is narrowed down to instances where existing land use varies substantially from what is permitted by way of zoning to be built new in its place.

The member for Oak Bay spoke of the stately-homes problem. I would like to suggest to him that stately homes are the extreme of this very example, where what could be built in place of what is there now is a great deal more valuable. This creates a tremendous hiatus financially.

However, stately homes with hundreds of acres are not a typical problem in B.C. In fact, what British Columbians ought to be concerned about through the auspices of this legislation is the preservation of a cross-section of their social and economic history. We're not just concerned with stately homes, but the early mining settlements and the working-class situation all the way through.

Now just further to this, the member for Vancouver Centre spoke about B.C. Hydro. I would just draw to his attention that as he indicated, the city of Vancouver is empowered to designate the site in question. As he indicated, the Act applies to B.C. Hydro. Therefore that designation would, in fact, be binding upon B.C. Hydro. Hydro has co-operated, for example, in the recent mastadon recovery up in the Peace River.

[ Page 4651 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you'd call the rather noisy and impolite Leader of the Opposition to order.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I resemble that remark!

HON. MR. BAWLF: You're right.

Mr. Speaker, there are other developments where B.C. Hydro has had major developments affecting the land base. They have contributed extensive funding to the archaeological programme, in particular for investigation and salvation projects to salvage archaeological material from a number of sites.

Finally, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) spoke of income tax deducibility vis-à-vis donations and so forth to the trust. A question was asked: "What can we expect as an endowment for the trust?" Well, I'm not in a position to comment about that at this time, except to say that I feel that the endowment of the trust will compare very favourably with that for other trusts such as the Ontario Heritage Foundation. Heritage Canada, for example, receives what amounts to $500,000 a year for its work covering the whole of Canada. I think we'll compare very favourably with that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: No, I don't anticipate anything that niggling. I would just say that I expect, that the responsibility lies as well with the private people in the province. We would expect a growing contribution by way of matching funds through donations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to close debate. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 77, Heritage Conservation Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

STATISTICS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I stand in my place in committee with great regret, because as soon as my back was turned - as soon as I was out of the capital ever so briefly - the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) rushed in with the Statistics Act, the worst Stalinist Act that this government could possibly engineer, and tried to rifle it through in my absence. Now I am curtailed because, as you know, I'm obedient. I do not break the standing orders and rules of this House and I will not debate the principle of this bill ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: ... in anticipation of Mr. Chairman's rulings,

But I really think that the Minister of Economic Development ought not to be so frightened of this little member for Vancouver Centre. What harm can it do to hear from me on the principle of this bill? What's he worried about?

Dealing with section 1, Mr. Chairman, having been steamrollered or duped, as soon as my back was turned....

MR. BARRETT: Roll back the odometer.

MR. LAUK: That's right. The Statistics Act is a very serious encroachment on human rights. The word "respondent" is something we're going to have to deal with. It means "a person of whom, or in respect of whose activities a report or information is sought or provided under this Act." There is nothing permissive about it. If this minister or any other appoints a director, and that director under the Public Service Commission is appointed, he has a substantial amount of power.

Can you imagine what would happen if the New Democratic Party government had brought in a Statistics Act with this definition for "respondent"? Can you imagine what would have happened on the front pages of the big city press? I'll tell you, because it did happen. This is particularly for the press gallery. You know, people often say that the press is biased in favour of capitalist, pro status quo parties. I'm not one of those, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like B.C. Today.

MR. LAUK: Like B.C. Today, that Social Credit front.

It did happen, Mr. Chairman, because when I was a minister in that portfolio I made an announcement to a bunch of statisticians that I thought it would be a good idea and outlined some of the provisions of the Act much softer than this. The then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, the member for South Okanagan, called it a socialist intrusion into privacy -a way to beat down and take over all the small

[ Page 4652 ]

businesses in the province. I'm not exaggerating. The press covered it, there were headlines in the news, radio covered it and the television cameras were rolling. We didn't even have a bill. I just thought it would be a good idea.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Labour met with Pat Burns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, let's move to section 1.

MR. LAUK: Section 1 says " 'respondent' means a person or a ministry in respect of whom or in respect of whose activities a report or information is sought or provided under this Act." There's nothing permissive about it. This poor respondent must report. "Respondent" is just a fancy word for the average citizen of this province who's going to be ground under heel. He won't have any secrets from the government. We know in this province that this province's population is overgoverned. We know that. And now every step the small businessman takes, these poor respondents will have to give a full report to this czar of information to be appointed by the Public Service Commission, irrespective of this oath for secrecy. We know the secrecy of the minister's office, don't we, Mr. Chairman? We know the secrecy. Arthur Weeks knows the secrecy.

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

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps also while you were away it was not reported to you that a couple of rulings did take place in the House. One of them is that when a member is called to order, he takes his seat. The second ruling is that under the interpretation or definition section of any bill, it is not proper to debate again the principle of the bill. I'd like to draw that to the member's attention just in case his caucus has been remiss in drawing it to his attention.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My caucus never tells me anything. They're afraid I'll talk to Arthur Weeks.

I'll just move along from the interpretation section. Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to do was point out two things in the definition section.

One is that in this instance I have personal experience where the press did not treat in an unbiased, even-handed manner the actions of two political parties in this province when both were governments at separate times, of course. That point should be made. I'm not going to cry about it, but when people deny that this kind of thing happens, it should be pointed out, and I did.

The second thing I wish to point out is that the language of the Act under these definition sections troubles me. I think "respondent" should not read "respondent"; I think it should read "ordinary little citizen subject to heavy-handed government."

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. LAUK: You know, we win every debate in this committee in this Legislature, but we lose every vote. Have you noticed that? We win every debate.

Section 7 says:

"A person having the custody or charge of records that

"a) are maintained by a ministry, municipality or regional district, corporation, business, or organization, from which information respecting the objects of this Act can be obtained, or

"b) would aid in the completion or correction of information obtained from a body referred to in paragraph (a) , shall make the records available to the director or person authorized by the director."

"Shall." Now that's a shocking intrusion to private enterprise in this province. It's a shocking intrusion into the lives and personal business practices of every citizen of this province. And I'm not impressed with the oaths of secrecy, Mr. Chairman. I am not impressed with that as being a protection to the small businessmen of this province. What if this director of statistics wanted to know whether or not there were any people representing political parties in his business? Let's say he ran a fabricating company.

MR. BARRETT: Fabricating? That'd be Social Credit.

MR. LAUK: Social Credit. Let's say he ran a fabricating company in Surrey. And the director -who's not bound by any guidelines - decides that they want to do a statistical analysis of how many foremen in fabricating shops are NDP, Tory and Socred. Okay? Not unlikely. Have you seen what Statistics Canada do? That kind of name questionnaire goes out all the time. But it's not voluntary. That director wants a return, and the return shall be returned to that director by the respondent. That could be anyone in this province.

Now who is that director? That director is a person who is under the direct control of the minister of the day. In this case the man who hired Arthur Weeks is going to be the man in control of the director of this Statistics Act. Can anyone in the business community trust that their information will

[ Page 4653 ]

be held confidential after that scandalous performance by Mr. Arthur Weeks?

MR. LEA: He may be the director.

MR. BARRETT: Cut your advertising budget and give them the information.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Prince Rupert suggests that Arthur Weeks may be the director. Why not? I've seen a lot of audacity on the part of this government. It may even be likely. Well, Mr. Chairman, we can't treat this section in a cavalier and light-hearted fashion. When you look at the history of this minister in particular and his staff, the director of these statistics is subject to that minister's direction himself. And oaths of secrecy are not enough of a safeguard against critical information reaching this minister's ears and him acting upon it. This is the kind of thing that can happen very easily.

I can see clearly that it will all be done in secret, that you as a small businessman may never know what the minister knows, or what political action he might take against you. People have to feel confident in this province that their personal business practices, if they're legal.... The vast majority of small businessmen in this province don't do anything wrong. Why do they need the statistics branch pouncing around the countryside trying to probe into their affairs? Do we need more statistical information in this province?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

MR. LAUK: The typical Liberal says "yes." Do you know what the definition of a Liberal is? "If there's a serious problem, we'll do a statistical analysis. If it's even worse, we'll appoint a commission. But God forbid that we should do anything to solve the problem. Oh, we'll spend money, we'll hire civil servants, we'll appoint new chairmen, we'll appoint this, we'll do that, but we won't solve the problem. That would be a travesty of government." Typical Liberal response. He says we don't have enough statistics in British Columbia. Good Lord! The average small businessman in this province spends about a third of his day filling out forms. He hasn't got time to take care of the payroll and manage his business. He's got to fill out another form under section 7. You know, this is incredible.

This Act came before me recommended by civil servants. I said: "Forget it!" I said: "Take it back." This is nonsense. This province is overgoverned, and we found out recently by the last quarterly report.... We missed one along the way. We missed that one; that's embarrassing. But in the last quarterly report we find that we're overtaxed. So here we are, under the Statistics Act, more overgoverned and by a government that also likes to overtax.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to section 7, line 7, by deleting the word "shall" and substituting the word "may" therefore. Mr. Chairman, that would make the section permissive instead of mandatory, which is the reasonable, democratic thing to do. Will the Page take this to the Chair?

On the amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the member's concerns. However, I must say that I think this section was lifted directly from a bill that he tried to bring in. But the Premier of the day, of course, would have no part of it. I don't wish to get political. But as the member full well knows, in order to comply....

One of the reasons we are bringing in the Statistics Act - if the member had been here yesterday for second reading, we brought this out very clearly in the House - is that in order for us to comply with the Canada Statistics Act, in order to bring us up to date with the rest of the provinces, and in order for us to have the statistics that we need to make intelligent decisions to run the government of British Columbia for the good of all the people, we must be in a position to have these straight facts and figures. I know the member was going to bring it in. If we don't have it mandatory so that we comply with section 10 of the Canada Statistics Act, we can't comply with that. They demand that there be a compulsory section and the member knows that. So we cannot accept the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I wish that the member would remember those great freedom fighter speeches he used to make on behalf of the small businessmen. You get in the government and you want to cram this down the small businessman's throat. And to get up and say that I was the one who stopped it from happening is absolutely correct. And you want to go out there to big government by saying this shall be done.

I never thought I'd see the day. You have been captured by the bureaucrats. Now I could say a lot of things about this section, but the worst thing I can say in terms of your political performance is that you have become nothing but a looking glass for the Alice-in-Wonderland civil servants who are running berserk all over this country, accumulating statistics on statistics on statistics. You've lost your power of action, you've lost your will to get moving and give leadership and you're resting on collecting statistics. They shall comply to collect those statistics, through you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say "megavitamins."

[ Page 4654 ]

MR. BARRETT: Megavitamins. Now that I've said it, will you see that that girl gets them?

Mr. Chairman, here is an incredible performance by that minister who used to regale this House about the small businessmen being forced to do this, the small businessmen being forced to do that. And now, when this amendment comes through and makes it mandatory for that struggling little businessman out there, of whom you proclaim to be the champion, you say nothing doing. You better do what big daddy Don wants, or else. What a twist. What a switch.

Here it is, down here in centralized Victoria, this hustling, bustling capital. They know better than some small businessmen in Dawson Creek. Just send the statistics down from Dawson Creek - you shall do this - or from Kamloops or from West Vancouver or from Point Grey. You shall do this. All those backbenchers will vote for it. You're telling every single businessman in this province who has had enough of this government in terms of increased taxation and a decrease in tourism....

You're a small businessman back there who campaigned for Social Credit; are you going to stand for this? Can't you see it? How many colours have you got in Color Your World? How many paints do you mix in the daylight? How many mix in the dark? You have infrared paints. Can't you see it all now? You'll be stuck with carbon paper. You shall do this for that minister. You know him better than most. You know it would be worthless giving him statistics, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Can't you see the whole direction of this government? It's become so bound up in red tape and its own rhetoric that it's led to this kind of legislation. Certainly I stopped this kind of legislation - on the advice of the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk) . He said: "We didn't hire bureaucrats to total up a list of figures and become bottom-line mentality. We hired people to get things done in this province." What about your statistics on leasing rail cars instead of building them in. British Columbia? What about your statistics in doubling the ferry rates instead of bringing tourists in? What about your statistics in doubling the....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Order!

MR. BARRETT: Well, this shall be done. You're going to tell every single small businessman, "my will shall be done." Now you've got an opportunity to amend it here. Where are these backbenchers who are going to stand up for that small beleaguered businessman who has already been buried in red tape and forms and statistics? Look at this. You "shall make the records available to the director or person authorized by the director." Will the Minister of Labour get, on a platform with Pat Burns and run around the province saying: "The government is taking away your freedom. You shall report."9 That's what you did on the land bill; don't you remember that?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only thing that was missing were the burning sheets.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they ran around associating themselves with Pat Burns and all kinds of people and Color Your World advertised on the radio. Big government is making us do this and now that they're in power, what' s happened on a quiet August afternoon? They're going to ram this down the throats of every small businessman in this province.

That member is being responsible in giving you an opportunity to get off the hook. You don't even read this legislation. You have been caught in the whisper game, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what's happened? The bureaucrats come up and whisper and say: "Sir, I'm not political, but I just want to tell you this. You're the best minister this department's ever had." And you're locked right in by the bureaucrats and they dump every piece of nonsensical legislation that they have been storing up for years right on the minister's desk. They cram it right past him while he listens to the Lorelei song saying: "You're the best we ever had."

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): And Arthur Weeks is not there to protect him. Kojak's gone.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not going to make any comment on Arthur Weeks. The minister's own judgment is comment enough on that. But surely to goodness with all the problems facing the small businessmen of this province the last thing they need is an order from the government: "You shall fill out these forms, or else. . . ." What are you going to do if they don't, seize their poor little businesses?

I can see it now. You're going to hire 10 defeated Socred candidates and have them out there as the supervisors going around collecting statistics. If you don't hire them, Gracie (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will. She's got them on the list now. Every defeated Socred hack who hasn't got a job is now going to be a statistics taker. They'll be standing on the street corners next to a wake at a Salvation Army saying: "It's our turn now. Give me the statistics under section 3." Can't you see them ringing their bells saying: "Give me your statistics"? You shall.

MR. KEMPF: Order!

[ Page 4655 ]

MR. BARRETT: What do you mean "order"? You want a job, don't you? I know you.

Mr. Chairman, he'll be one of the best statistics takers going. He'll stand up in Victory Square saying, "I want them, " and everybody will line up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Come on, Mr. Chairman - to the minister. Don't be caught up by your bureaucrats. Don't be lulled by the Lorelei song of the little guitars playing away saying: "You're the greatest minister we ever had."

What are you playing around with this stuff for? Surely to goodness, in all seriousness, there are far more real problems for the small businessmen in this province than to have another load of bureaucratic forms land on their desks from the minister saying: "You shall fill this out." They have to fill out a payroll, they have to pay their rent, they have to pay their exorbitant Hydro bills. They've got to meet the high shipping rates and they've got other problems. They don't want to be faced with a bunch of nonsensical, non-meaning statistics.

Do you know what it will mean for them? "You shall report" - and at the end of every six months they shall find out how many guys went broke filling out forms. Some statistics information!

That's really small comfort for those free enterprisers out there. I'll bet you the chamber of commerce of British Columbia wouldn't endorse this kind of nonsense.

MR. LAUK: Not a chance!

MR. BARRETT: Not a chance is right. This is some kind of bureaucracy gone wild. This government is impotent in delivering any meaningful service to small businessmen. The only thing they've done is retreat to this kind of nonsensical legislation saying: "You shall fill out this form, you shall do this, you shall do that."

And do you know that the defence will be? I guarantee you this, the defence will be: "Well, you tried to do it when you were government." Imagine, that's their defence so far, Mr. Chairman; "You tried to do it but you didn't." Everything we did was wrong. Now they're saying that they are only doing what we tried to do. What's the matter with that thinking?

The second defence will be: "The NDP caused the problem, now we want to get the statistics on the problem."

Talk about an incompetent, fumbling, bumbling government that has had almost two years of power and after all that labouring and intense work and cabinet meetings starting at 7 o'clock in the morning and going to midnight, all they come up with is this kind of junk legislation.

There is a wave of protest sweeping right across North America against junk food. There should be a whole wave of protest against junk legislation. Why is this coming in? Because it was in the mill, that's why.

MR. KING: It's habit-forming.

MR. BARRETT: It's habit-forming, exactly. It's like a Big Mac. He's got a Big Mac attack; he's got a big legislation attack. He wants his chance at the wicket with the rest of the bureaucrats. Legislation, legislation, legislation gone mad. "You shall report, " says this section.

Some little popcorn vendor down in English Bay. Can't you see him? When a car stops and they want a 15 cent bag of popcorn: "Don't bother me. Don wants the numbers of popcorn sold that are buttered and those that aren't buttered. I've got to get that over to Victoria right away because we have to know if unbuttered popcorn is more saleable than buttered popcorn." They're laughing down there because they are small businessmen and they know exactly what I'm saying is correct, Mr. Chairman. That's the kind of nonsense that's collected and filed away in vaults in statistics chambers in Ottawa. And they will be filed away in vaults here. Can't you see them running around going to posy sellers, saying: "Do you sell purple posies or red posies - or cat posies?"

Mr. Chairman, we ask the minister: come to your senses. Go back to being a used-car salesman. Can't you see it now? How many pink cars were sold in Dawson Creek? How many blue cars? How many green cars? All the minister wants to know is how many cars of one colour sold on a Wednesday at high noon.' Stupid, dumb, meaningless collection of statistics that are buried away in somebody's file! Come on, you backbenchers, you small businessmen and defenders of those small businessmen, get up! Let's hear it.

You know what, Mr. Chairman? What's even more fearful is that they have become statistics too. That's all. All they're here for is to be the numbers for the government when it wants its votes pushed through. Look at them. Silent, happy here in Victoria in the middle of summer - can't wait to get into the House every single day just to sit here and take the ministrations of the minister under this section.

Mr. Chairman, every one of them wants to speak but they are being held down, ordered down. They shall stay still. They shall not speak. They shall not give an opinion. They shall not colour their world. They shall report. They shall, they shall, they shall.

MR. LAUK: We shall return.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and we shall return. Mr. Chairman, I never thought' I'd see the day that small

[ Page 4656 ]

businessmen of this province would be whipped into line, pushed, threatened, ordered by that minister to report statistics on statistics forms that he wants to conform with Ottawa. To conform with Ottawa! No leadership of his own. That's what the feds want. Every popcorn seller in front of English Bay should be up in arms. Mr. Minister, they shall conform. At least give them a break. Those that want to be aggressive enough to rip up the forms and say the heck with this nonsense should at least be free in our society to do that much, and that's what the member is asking for.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I appreciate his concern. I certainly appreciate his disdain for statistics, because when they were government they ran by the seat of their pants. They brought in legislation; they didn't know the facts and they didn't want to know the facts. That's why that man when he was Premier put that man down and wouldn't let him bring in this Act. They didn't want the facts. That's why they changed the mining legislation. That's why they built the railway car plant. They had the facts but they didn't want to use them.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 42, Mr. Chairman, the member has been corrected twice. The facts are, Mr. Chairman, that this Act was proposed by civil servants and it was turned down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a point of order. Will the member please be seated?

MR. LAUK: Yes, it is, under standing order 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member please be seated? Any correction which need be made will be made when the member has finished his speech and is seated. A point of order is not to be used to interrupt a man's speech.

MR. LAUK: Well, standing order 42 states: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood. . . ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee of the Whole. There is no restriction on the number of times that a member speaks in Committee of the Whole, even on an amendment. Therefore the member's point of order is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Well, it is, because it goes on to say:

. and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation." I made the explanation; so did the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver Centre knows very well that all corrections to speeches are made at the end of the speech. He has just done what the standing orders do not provide for, and that is to interrupt a man's speech.

The Minister of Economic Development continues.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said before, we went over this yesterday afternoon. I assured the House that certainly we're not going to send out a lot of additional forms for the small businessman to fill in. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, as I explained yesterday afternoon, they're filling them in now, and they're going, to Ottawa in order to give those same small businessmen some of the benefits of the work that they're presently doing. That is one of the purposes of this Act. We have to conform, as the Leader of the Opposition knows.

But we can always expect the show at about 5:30. I'll tell you, there are some other statistics in this province and they were changed on December 11,1975. With the performance and the logic that was just put on by that man, it's no wonder they changed because that's the type of leadership they had when they were a government. That's why the status changed; that's why they didn't pay any attention; that's why they didn't want this Act. They didn't want the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We've listened to that performance . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... time and time again in this House. That's why he's a statistician. He's a one-time politician; he's a one-time Premier! That's a stat that'll never change in this province!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, I would like to read the amendment. The amendment simply deletes the word "shall" and substitutes the word "may." The debate on an amendment is strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Bearing in mind statistical language, Mr. Chairman, and given the scope of the amendment, I wonder if the minister's speech was a standard deviation. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: The question around this amendment is one of a choice between force,

[ Page 4657 ]

compulsion or co-operation. What the minister is saying in this section in ordering that persons "shall" provide the information is simply that he doesn't expect co-operation. He is going to have to force them. We won't accept any phony argument, any red herring; that we're doing because it's ordered by Ottawa and because Ottawa says we must do this. This is the province of British Columbia and we're legislating laws here for British Columbia, not following Ottawa's dictates. If he wants to be a little puppy dog and follow behind the minister back there in Ottawa, then let him run federally.

I never thought I'd see the day, Mr. Chairman, when this minister would become so obedient and so well trained by the federal minister. I think if this is the situation - and he's already told us; he said that the federal government already gets all these statistics - then why don't they change their legislation so they have the right to release them to a provincial government?

His explanation just doesn't hold up. What he's asking for is that we put a huge burden.... I see that the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) has his mike up. I hope he will get up and speak and bring some sense to this minister, his colleague from the Peace River.

MR. BARRETT: How many did they bury upside-down? How many did they bury standing up?

MR. NICOLSON: He's not in that business, and the other one is away, maybe doing that very thing.

I mentioned this to the minister yesterday. I know that if there is any one single complaint upon which small business people are most unanimous, it is their opposition to the deluge of paper and red tape. If they get much more of it, they'll be rendered absolutely incapable of doing the jobs that they are skilled at and capable of doing.

I would urge the minister to accept this simple amendment. Let's see if the small business people aren't co-operative. That's what the minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, in refusing this amendment and speaking against this amendment. He is saying that he doesn't expect the small business people of this province to co-operate. What he is saying is that all they understand is the big stick and force and compulsion. I don't think that is good enough.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's incredible that this section would come in from this minister with these words after his new paint job. He has come in here to tell us that what he wants to do is to have every small businessman and every small businesswoman in this province spend about another hour a week filling out a form. Now that costs money. It costs money to fill out a form every week.

I can tell you that about once a week, if not more, you will get an envelope from Statistics Canada, and if you were to follow the requirements they say you have to, it would take about an hour of your time a week to fill out those forms. For what - so they can have information to do what?

I suggest that if the only reason "shall" is in there instead of "may" is because the federal government wants it, then the 55 members of this Legislature should send a simple telegram down to them and tell them to go and jump in the lake. We should make it clear that the province of British Columbia will not ask every small business to put in about an hour a week filling out forms when there is no need for it because we are going to be the small, weaker cousins of Ottawa. Why should we do this? Why should we ask small businessmen to do it? The minister says they do it anyway. They don't do it anyway. They do it once, for Statistics Canada. Now this bill is going to require it - "shall" make them do it - again for Statistics British Columbia.

It's absolutely ridiculous. At the very least, why not get the information from Ottawa? Why make them do it twice? If Ottawa wants to have the information, then let Ottawa supply us with the information. Why make small businesses do it twice? It's ridiculous. The only reason that the minister and his government will not accept this amendment is that they are doing it on a matter of principle - you don't accept amendments from the opposition because it makes you look weak as a government. That's the only reason they are doing it. They are sitting over there not willing to accept an amendment, whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense, because they don't want to appear weak to the press and, therefore, to the public. It's the only reason. There's no logical reason not to accept this.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I fully expect that the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) will get up and say his piece on this legislation, as he always does. It's hard to hold him down. It's hard to hold him down in his seat because he just likes to get up and represent those people who elected him. He just loves it. Why, he's been up two or three times in this House since he's been elected. He's got everything to say but nothing to say on his feet! He's hoping that if he doesn't say anything he'll get into cabinet through the back door.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: We are speaking to the amendment because there we have a businessman in this province who's willing to vote for this legislation even though he knows it shouldn't be in place. He knows it

[ Page 4658 ]

shouldn't be in place, but he wants to be in the cabinet so badly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would call the hon. member for Prince Rupert to the amendment which has to do with the deletion of one word and the addition of another. Please keep your remarks relevant to the amendment.

MR. LEA: I finished my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Here comes the federal defence, Mr. Chairman. Here we go. That's why the Liberals have one seat. Carry on.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I....

MR. LAUK: Go ahead - see if I care.

MR. GIBSON: I really hadn't been planning to respond to what the member said earlier, but I did notice that in introducing this section he found it necessary to define the word "liberal, " which isn't in the definition section of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the debate is hardly relevant to the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm on my feet and talking. This section, if I understand it correctly, relates to access to records. If this section required a businessman to fill out an extra hour's worth of forms a week, I'd be concerned about it. I want to ask the minister about that specifically. Will this section require the filling out of any extra forms? As I read it, it simply requires the person having custody of records shall make them available, which doesn't sound to me like it takes any extra time, but I'd like the minister to give us that assurance.

MR. LEA: He cannot give us that assurance.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just asking the minister to give us that assurance, which is a simple enough question.

MR. LAUK: Read section 5.

MR. GIBSON: I say to the hon. friend on my right (Mr. Lauk) that my definition of a socialist is a liberal whose brain is blown out. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, for the third or fourth time, I want to assure the House it is not the intention, as I pointed out, to inundate the small businessman with a group of forms. I know the amount of time that is being taken by the present filling out of forms and certainly it's not the intention of this government to go and inundate.

However, the work is presently being done. Certainly there are small manufacturers in this province and in regions where we do not have access to that information at the present time. As I say, one of the purposes of this Act is to put us on stream with the other provinces and with Canada and with their Act. Certainly we're going to seek the co-operation, as Canada does. That is the whole purpose of the Act, to seek the co-operation. Ninety per cent of the time 90 per cent of the respondents are filled out, but if you don't have the clause in there, you know what happens. One time Ottawa took the penalty out on a certain form. It went on for years and pretty soon the respondents kept dwindling and dwindling. You have to have something in there if you're going to have meaningful statistics. You must have representative statistics, and that's all the purpose of it is.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister is trying to pass off bureaucratese. I never thought I would hear the minister explaining, "well, you have to have this, you have to have this." You order people to do it. What happened to the old fighting independent spirit of the small businessman who said the government shouldn't be pushing the small businessmen around? Why don't you give them the choice and accept the amendment? I can hardly believe my ears to hear the minister get up and say: "Well, we have to have it and we have to order them to do it. You have to order them to do it. If we don't order them to do it, they won't do it." Well maybe they would like some freedom to determine whether or not they should do it, and that's what it's all about - some freedom to make a choice for themselves.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're way off on the debate, Mr. Chairman. This is access to public records; it has nothing to do with that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is to substitute "may" instead of "shall". Why don't you trust the small businessman? Appeal to him on the basis of the reason and logic that you're trying to sell here. Why do you tell the small businessman: "You shall do this, because if I don't tell you that you shall do this, you may not do it."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're not talking about the small businessman; we're talking about public records.

[ Page 4659 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well~ Mr. Chairman, if their records are public, what do we need this for? Just write Ottawa and say: "Pass it along to me; I'll take the oath. I won't squeal on how many popcorns are sold unbuttered.-

Come on, Mr. Chairman, this is just a simple amendment that says leave it up to the wisdom and maturity and responsibility of the individual small businessman, who'll make up his own mind in a free society whether or not he wants to fill out forms. But they sure as heck didn't go around campaigning for you. And that accumulated crew over there with the idea of being told they shall do this.... Surely that was not the purpose of your whole political thrust.

You have been captured by the bureaucrats. I can hardly believe your explanation. It was a plastic tape recording. The bureaucrats are plugged right into you. And the words that came out of your mouth were: "Well, we need this information and if we don't say , shall' some of them won't answer. If we don't get the answer, we won't be able to fill out the sheets."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: He's part of the Systems Corporation, right. He's Mr. Univac; he's been programmed. The bureaucrats have won him, that small freedom fighter from the north. Championing the small businessman, he came down to the big city, bought a $250 suit plus tax, and is now pushing this kind of subsection because he's a cabinet minister. He's forgotten all about the freedom fight. He's forgotten all about the demands and the participation and releasing free enterprise. Remember that bird they sent out.

AN HON. MEMBER: The kind of logic you're using is the reason you're over there and we're over here.

MR. BARRETT: I warned those small businessmen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition please keep his remarks relevant to the amendment. This is the third warning.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That's correct. Instead of ordering people in this section by saying "shall", we are proposing an amendment that says "may". The reason we're doing that is, if you will recall, they had a great big bird flying around, saying: "Let's free enterprise." Do you remember that? And now what this minister's doing is saying: "Okay, let the bird do it on your suit." That's what's happening. Look what the bird's doing to your suit once they let him free. "You shall do this; you shall do that."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Hollywood special.

MR. BARRETT: That bird was a seagull. And now it's all the way into the interior.

Mr. Chairman, give the little businessman a break. Accept the amendment. It's not going to bring the government down. It'll just be a minor bump in this great legislative process, but it will give that little guy out there a vision, a hope, a dream, some scope that he "may" fill this in rather than "shall", by Big Brother in Victoria. A little amendment like this -what are you afraid of? Instead of asking the little businessman, you want to order him. Are you afraid of that little guy out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Phone the Premier and see whether you can take the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's long distance to Norway to phone the Premier. Mr. Chairman, the point that I'm trying to make is....

MR. LEA: Let him get a deputy to phone.

MR. BARRETT: No, they need permission from the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister to accept the word "may." Let freedom ring in this province on behalf of the small businessman.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, I think there might be a mayday call going out from the small businesspeople of British Columbia. If we keep going in this kind of direction - compulsion - there will be no small businesspeople.

The minister has said many times in this debate that he needs this compulsion in order that he can get this raw data. That's what he wants, raw data - the untreated stuff that Statistics Canada is getting. He says: "They're getting it so we want it." Then why didn't he delete all of the parts of this thing? If that's the reason for the compulsion - if that's why it's to say "shall" - why didn't he delete "ministry, municipality or regional district, corporation, business or organization, " and put down "Statistics Canada"; which is in the definition section? Make it compulsory for Statistics Canada to give this raw, untreated data which he wants in order that he can do regional breakdowns and various other treatments of information.

Mr. Chairman, I think that if the small businesspeople of this province knew what was happening, they would be putting out their calls and their distress signals: "Mayday! We're in trouble! Help us! Save us! Save us from he who would pretend to be our champion and who has forgotten what the troubles of a small businessman are all about."

[ Page 4660 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.