[ Page 5031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 86) Second reading

Mr. Lauk –– 5031

Mr. Barber –– 5033

Mr. Barnes –– 5036

Mrs. Dailly –– 5043

Mr. Barrett –– 5044

Hon. MR. Mair –– 5047

Division on second reading –– 5050

Mineral Act (Bill 73) Committee stage

On section I as amended

Mr. Nicolson –– 5050

Hon. MR. Chabot –– 5050

On section 5.

Mr. Gibson –– 5051

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5051

Mr. Lauk –– 5052

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson –– 5052

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5052

On section 7.

Mr. Lea –– 5053

Hon Mr. Chabot –– 5053

Ms. Sanford –– 5054

Mr. Lauk –– 5055

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5056

Mr. Gibson –– 5056

Mr. Lea –– 5056

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5058

Mr. Nicolson –– 5059

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5060

Mr. Gibson –– 5060

Appendix –– 5061

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): Just before the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I was drawing to the attention of the House the fact that the people of my riding who are tenants, at least Where is that elusive Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) ? He was here a moment ago.

Mr. D.G. Cocke (New Westminster): He had to take his $ 1,000 suit out.

Mr. Lauk: I see. Why is the Premier so shy? He should be here listening to these comments because, Mr. Speaker, it's his signature at the bottom of this ad.

As I was saying to the House before supper

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: There is an echo in here, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) said I showed it to you before supper. Does it rankle the hon. minister? Does it get under the minister's skin? Did it appear in one of his local newspapers in his constituency and was he embarrassed on behalf of his leader who said: "Social Credit will not abolish rent controls"? It doesn't say anything else. It says: "Social Credit will not..." You will notice, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis under the word "not." It's the member for South Okanagan's (Hon. Mr. Bennett's) , not mine, not the newspaper's, As soon as I rose to speak the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) said: "Where did he go? Where did the Premier go?" As soon as I rose to speak, hon. member, he scurried out the side door, scurried out in that $1,000 suit.

Mr. R. Loewen (Burnaby-Edmonds): He's frightened of you, Gary.

Mr. Lauk: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's particularly ... it's poetic justice that, on the same page as this totally deceptive ad appeared, there is this very attractive layout on the upper right-hand corner, a Barnes and Lauk ad showing the track record of the two incumbents in that constituency of Vancouver Centre.

.Hon. E.M. Wolfe (Minister of Finance): Didn't I hear this before dinner?

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What track record?

Mr. Lauk: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) again raises the level of debate, Mr. Speaker, as I said before 6 o'clock this afternoon, all of the cat-calling, heckling and joke-making do not diminish one iota the fact that this powerful, top-heavy government, this arrogant steamroller of a government, has betrayed the tenants of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): You've got another little blue suit behind you, I hear. Is he going to follow your lies?

Mr. Lauk: I am sure that if one can remember the words of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam when it states:

The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on. Nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Hon. Mr. Mair. Oh, that's beautiful.

Mr. Lauk: And I thank the Hon. Liberal leader for providing that very important quote.

An Hon. Member: Thank Omar.

Mr. Lauk: Who is the real Omar Khayyam?

Mr. Barber: I think it's Edward Fitzgerald.

Mr. Lauk: Not to mention the real Prince of Wales.

Hon. Mr. Mair: That's Goody Two-shoes to follow.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, as I say, there are tens of thousands of tenants in my riding alone who believed this advertisement.

Interjections.

Mr. Lauk: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is now entering the debate from his seat.

Hon. Mr. Mair: If we're going to waste time, we might as well have fun, Gary.

[ Page 5032 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, the argument is often raised that we can do away with rent controls now that the vacancy rate is increasing. Rent controls were not intended for those persons who could afford $300, $400, $500 and $600 a month.

An Hon. Member: Don't disturb him. He's on the principle of the bill for the first time this year.

Mr. Lauk: The rent controls were imposed and are used, if they're used wisely, to protect the low and medium-income people from being subjected....

An Hon. Member: Here's Emery. They held it for you, Em. It's okay now. You can get up now. They were in danger for a minute there. They nearly threw Lauk out of the House, but you're okay. You're in. They held her for you, kid. Boy, loyalty knows no bounds.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

An Hon. Member: If he'd had loyalty like that from his teammates, he'd still be playing for the Lions.

Mr. Lauk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it a bit disturbing that they will not allow a member of this little opposition party to speak in the House. You'll notice that they interrupt every word. I appreciate their help. I do. I'm not as good a speaker as the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . I have to struggle to find words to express the true anxiety and, more than just disappointment, but a sense of betrayal, of the hundreds – indeed, the tens of thousands – of tenants who believed the ad signed by the Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) , signed by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for South Okanagan. They believed him. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker; they'll never believe him again.

It's just specious for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to argue that the actions of a few landlords should not encourage the government to punish all landlords, because rent controls are not a punishment. It's a regulation; it is an intervention of the government and a time of crisis for the low- and middle-income groups of this country, let alone this province. They are people who must have a place to live. Some on fixed incomes and others on low income are paying up to two-thirds of their income on rental alone.

May I point out the story today in The Victorian, in the capital city? It is called: "Rent or Ripoff?" As I read this, I would not like the hon. members of this House to think that it's an isolated case. The amount of the rent increase imposed upon the subject person of this article happens every day in the West End of the city of Vancouver.

"A Victoria landlord has raised the rent of one of his houses by 54.1 per cent effective September 1 in anticipation of the government’s announced intention to remove rent controls entirely. A.A. Kasapi, president of Kasapi Construction, notified Vernon & Nesta Cragg of 799 Byng Street in Oak Bay that their rent of $184.94 would be increasing to $285. The Craggs have lived in the small two-bedroom home for five years."

The hon. second member for Victoria will have a word or two to say about that situation, Mr. Speaker. As I say, this is not an exaggeration; this is not a case involving an exaggeration. These cases are occurring each and every day in anticipation of this government's action in betraying their promise to the people of this province that they would not abolish rent control. What can the government say? The only thing they have said is: "We have the majority of the members of this Legislature and we can do anything we want. We are not subject to recall. We don't have to answer to the people except at general election time."

I know what their fervent hope is – that a sufficient number of the tenants of this province will forget the betrayal that has occurred here in this chamber in the past day. I'm sure when this great majority on the government's side steamrolled this piece of legislation into law... It was arrogance when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shouted over: "You're meaningless." This is the attitude the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has towards the opposition. He is at least honest enough to express what's in the mind of each and every member of that cabinet towards this opposition and towards the people that this opposition represents. It's arrogance and contempt. It's not a philosophical argument, it's a deep bitter hate for this opposition and the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You never show up. When you do, you bellyache.

Mr. Lauk: It is a most unfortunate thing. It may even be the slip of the tongue of the hon. minister's part, but it is a slip of the tongue that's true, because that is their attitude and it's their attitude that is exemplified in this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Mair: He bats 500 on attendance and then gets mad at people who bat 750.

[ Page 5033 ]

Mr. Cocke: Where did they have dinner tonight? Look at them.

Mr. Lauk: Oh, this is all right. The hon. member for New Westminster points out the complete disregard that the government has towards comments of the opposition criticizing their legislation. They are comfortable in the knowledge that they have a majority and a very obedient and subservient back bench. They know that this legislation will pass. They know there is little or nothing we can do about it except voice the tremendous sense of betrayal on the part of so many people who are tenants in this province. This is opening the floodgates to unconscionable activity and behaviour on the part of landlords throughout the province.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the laws aren't passed for the good guys. The laws aren't passed to regulate decent landlords and good citizens who may be the majority, and certainly, I would think, are the majority in the province of British Columbia. It is to protect the tenants from the unscrupulous landlord. That's what the legislation is designed for and it had the flexibility in there to protect the tenant citizen from the unscrupulous landlord, not from the good guys, Mr. Speaker. So for them to argue that this opposition wants to punish good landlords along with the bad is specious and it's wrong. It's simply a smokescreen to pass for a piece of class legislation. This is class legislation for the landlords of the province of British Columbia.

Isn't it funny that arguments axe now raised in support of this legislation saying that rent controls discourage investment in rental construction, in rental housing units, when vacancy rates are now rising? Can we accept that kind of logic, that kind of argument today in this chamber? The people of this province will judge "no." No, it's a smokescreen, as so much of what has been said by that side of the House with respect to this legislation has been.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the province who are tenants will not forget this betrayal. I pledge that I will do everything necessary to bring to the attention of every tenant in this province the kind of betrayal that they have suffered at the hands of this government, and that they are now virtually, when this legislation passes, without protection. I say it is abhorrent, and although this government has had many black days, this so far, Mr. Speaker, has been its blackest.

Mr. Barber: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election, the distinction was widely noted, especially in the high-rises of my constituency, between the signs that the Social Credit Party was able to persuade its supporters to put up and those signs that our party was able to persuade its supporters to put up. It was frequently noted, especially here in James Bay where, as it happens, I live, we would see on the lawns of the highrises, owned and operated by the landlords of them, great big signs telling people to vote Social Credit – specifically to vote Bawlf and Rendle. Over and over again, on the lawns in front of the major enterprises owned and operated by landlords in my riding, we saw dozens upon dozens of very large and very costly signs put up by the landlords. But when you looked into the windows of the apartments themselves, whose signs did you see, Mr. Speaker? You saw ours.

You saw people who had never voted NDP in their lives for the first time making a statement of confidence in the government that had the wisdom and the foresight and the compassion to bring in rent controls at a time when they were needed. On the lawns of the buildings you saw the signs of the landlords and they told you to vote Social Credit. But in the countless windows of the families, the elderly and the poor in this riding who were protected by rent controls, you saw the statements of their political allegiance and their statements of support of the government that had the wit and the courage to bring in rent controls when they were required.

It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, at least from where I sit, that in a riding like my own where 60 per cent of the electorate are tenants and where, contrary to a provincial trend that resulted in this coalition coming to power, we took that seat with tenant support for the first time in 42 years and doubled the vote at the same time, there is present in such an attitude and its result a very powerful message. Any government that ignored it would be a fool to do so. The minister is ignoring it – you can draw your own conclusions about his political wisdom.

In this province, tenants are saying, through us and through those Socreds who will listen, that there are important benefits and advantages to rent controls that must not be overlooked or forgotten or betrayed by a government that campaigned on the promise to keep them.

My colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) read into the record part of the sad story of the Cragg family. They happen to live in Oak Bay and I propose, if I may, to read the rest of it into the record. It is indicative and prophetic and illustrative of a trend that can and will occur in place after place in this province when rent controls are abolished.

The Craggs, who live at 799 Byng Street, are working people. For the last three years, they have rented a small cottage from their landlord, Kasapi Construction of Dupplin Road. It has two small bedrooms and a small yard. It's perfectly modest; nothing unreasonable at all. I have in front of me the notice of rent increase sent along by Kasapi Construction indicating that as of September 1, the present rent which is $184.94 is to increase by 54.1 per cent – that means $100.06 for a new total of

[ Page 5034 ]

$285 a month.

I have written to the rentalsman and to the Rent Review Commission specifically inquiring about renovations, if any were approved and none were, and asking that this rent increase be denied. It is, of course, illegal. It is, of course, unfair. It is, of course, an illustration of what can and will happen in city after city in this province of ours when rent controls are lifted as quickly and foolishly and injudiciously as this minister proposes to lift them. I recall he made some very unkind comments in the press a few days ago, to which I took no great offence.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You lied; you lied. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Barber: Will the minister withdraw that remark, please?

Hon. Mr. Mair: You didn't do it in here, you did it out there. If you want me to say it outside the House, I will. I did once and I'll say it again – you lied.

Mr. Barber: The problem with Social Credit in the field of rent controls, Mr. Speaker, is that they have absolutely no credibility. The reason why no one believes you when you say you're going to protect the tenants of this province from the cold water of free enterprise is because your whole record belies that claim. Everything your coalition has stood for contradicts this phony promise that you tried to make. Everything that your group has stood for year upon year in this province tells tenants that they have no reason to believe you, and neither do we. They tell us that any minister, especially a landlord one, who stands up and purports to protect tenants while simultaneously abolishing rent controls is saying something that cannot be believed. The minister should realize that no one believes him in this case either. No tenants do. The only people who believe him are landlords, and look what happened when one landlord took him at his word. His name is Kasapi and he raised the rent by 54.1 per cent. No tenant believes that you're protecting him, but Mr. Kasapi believes that you're protecting Kasapi Construction Ltd. He's got the message. We know how he voted in the last election. We know what you promised behind closed doors, and we know what phony advertisements you ran.

Mr. Kasapi, who sent the notice on a standard form issued by the rentalsman's office, told the newspaper that although he knows he cannot charge more than 10.6 per cent, he was asking for 54.1 per cent "because the government is going to remove controls anyway – it's open to negotiation." He goes on to say; "I'm not making any money on the house at $185 per month. I have to get more money or I will have to bulldoze the house and rebuild." Whatever kind of blackmail that is is up to you to decide. "I know the rent increase is not fair, but I asked for it not because I'm greedy, but because I can't run the property at that rent." Mr. Kasapi went on to say that he would accept an increase at 10.6 per cent, but should the controls come off, he still felt 54.1 per cent is fair. When he was reminded that a larger increase than 10.6 per cent is illegal, he said: "Fine, it's against the law, but it's not the same as shooting someone, is it?"

Hon. Mr. Mair: That's my fault?

Mr. Barber: It's representative of what will happen in this province, and in particular in the capital city, when you abolish rent controls, betray your promise, and break a commitment that you made to tenants in this and every other riding in the province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You know better than that, Gary! I forgive that stupidity, but you know better than that. Old motor-mouth doesn't know better, but you know better, Gary. Come on, smarten him up.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

Mr. Barber: There's another promise that has been broken, Mr. Speaker. It's not just the kind of promise made by that coalition when they ran those advertisements and when they are now betraying people like the Craggs, and others, who are coming to our attention. Do you recall the Premier making a public statement just a few short weeks ago – in April I believe it was? He told us that in May the allowable increase in rents would come down to 7 per cent in this province. Have they done that?

Hon. R.S. Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Effective in May.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Sure, retroactively it will.

Mr. Barber: When?

Hon. Mr. Mair: As soon as you sit down and we can get on.

Mr. Barber: As soon as I sit down? Oh, come on! What a joke!

Hon. Mr. Mair: Certainly. Pass the bill. There'll be an order-in-council forthwith.

[ Page 5035 ]

Mr. Barber: We have been waiting since March, April, May, June, July, August, and it'll be September before you're through.

Hon. Mr. Mair: That's up to you.

Mr. Barber: Do you have any idea of the chaos you have caused, the disorder you have created, the mismanagement in apartment and rental accommodation in this province that you guys have caused by your failure to order your own business in this House and to bring the bills down when you say they're going to be brought down?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Oh, bilge!

Mr. Barber: You tell us it is going to be retroactive. Do you have any idea of the bureaucracy you are creating, the red-tape you are causing, the delays you have established and the chaos that inevitably results from your utter failure to honour your promise to bring that down to 7 per cent? May has come and gone, and so has your promise.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, will you please return to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Barber: The minister just pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that he intends, months upon months after the promise was made, to honour it in the breach by reducing the allowable annual increase in rents to 7 per cent.

There are tenants who have been waiting and waiting for month after month for that coalition to honour that particular promise. They have failed shamefully and abysmally to conduct the business of this parliament in an efficient and proper way so that it could come down when it should have – months ago. They have created the grossest form of chaos which will lead to the grossest kinds of maladministration in the operation of apartment and rental facilities in this province that we have ever seen.

Can you imagine the headache of an apartment manager trying to figure out what the rebate should be? Can you imagine the migraines suffered by tenants as they try to determine what they should claim retroactively? Can you imagine the trouble this minister has caused by the failure to deliver the goods on time in the landlord and tenant business in this province? I don't think this particular minister has any idea of the difficulties, the problems and the chaos he has created by the maladministration of this House and the failure of this government to do its business effectively and efficiently within it.

I'd like to reiterate one of the reasons that the minister finds it necessary to tell people that the interests of the old and the interests of the poor, presently guaranteed by rent controls, will be protected when rent controls are abolished. It is because he knows, on the basis of their record alone, no one ever would think such a thing. On the basis of the record of this coalition, no one would presume for a moment that any tenants were going to be protected. He finds it necessary to make public statements that no one will suffer the cold water of free enterprise because he knows that on the basis of their record no one would ever assume it to be the case. They would assume, in fact, that the landlords, who are remarkably and consistently throughout this province supporters of Social Credit, and who indeed compose its benches, have every expectation – as Mr. Kasapi did – that once rent controls are lifted everything breaks loose and everything goes.

The minister has to stand up and beat his breast on this topic because no one believes him. He has to tell tenants, "Don't worry, we're going to protect you, " because no ordinary, common and sensible tenant would believe him. He has to say it over and over again because he has no credibility and neither does his government.

This government campaigned against rent controls when they were in opposition. They ran phony ads during the campaign hoping to lure a few votes in – and obviously they got them – and now that they're abolishing rent controls they turn around and tell people: "Don't worry, we'll protect you anyway. The old and the poor needn't fear." They are required to make that claim because no one would ever credit them with those kinds of natural instincts.

On behalf of the 60 per cent of the people of my riding who are tenants, a great many of them elderly and on fixed incomes, and indeed on behalf of young people who've come here to make a career within the public service – they've moved here from other parts of the province and they haven't the capital or the assets to buy, and they too rent – I urge the minister to reconsider. I urge the minister to remind himself just what his own party campaigned on in the last election. I urge the minister to remember that the credibility of the Premier is at stake. When any minister brings in a bill like this, the credibility of the First Minister is impugned because we have the ads that wore ran and signed by the then Leader of the Opposition promising not to abolish rent controls. My colleague for Vancouver Centre made that point very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Forever?

Mr. Barber: If it wasn't to be forever, no doubt the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, would have thought of it and said it. He's an honest man; he wouldn't try to mislead people by omitting to say some things, would he? He's a credible honest man.

[ Page 5036 ]

Mr. Mair: Charlie, are you for real? You can't be for real. I like it better when you stomp your tables.

Mr. Barber: Surely by his silence or his omission he wouldn't generally or genuinely try to suggest anything other than what he was suggesting, which was that rent controls wouldn't be abolished.

Coming from a minister like that with his own background in business, it's no wonder that tenants are suspicious. It's no wonder that tenants in my riding are fearful of a government like this, that would campaign on one thing and turn around and do another, and then to discover that they're doing it to them, personally and directly. They don't deserve to have it done for them for any good reason at all. You're frightening tenants. You're creating an atmosphere in which a Mr. Kasapi can tell people, in the press no less, that he believes when rent controls come up 54, 1 per cent is a fair, justifiable, legitimate rent increase. You're doing more damage to the economy of this province having created the chaos you have now – and proposing to add to it when you abolish rent controls – than you may ever have realized. Because of this specific aspect, it's a bad bill. We oppose it as powerfully and enduringly as we can. We hope that you have the common sense and the good sense to change your mind and withdraw that particular aspect of it. It has absolutely no support from any tenant I've yet met.

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the minister for being....

Interjection.

Mr. Barnes: Thank you, go ahead. I must apologize to the minister for being absent this afternoon when he introduced Bill 86.

An Hon. Member: No problem.

Mr. Barnes: I didn't have an opportunity to hear his remarks but I'm sure he spoke from the heart, and what he had to say will be resounding throughout the province like the comments he made this morning, about 11:15, when he met with the tenants.

Mr. Cocke: What did he say?

Mr. Barnes: On Scare West. I understand he went over there by Scare West and came back. Interesting isn't it? Strike is on, but the minister is in a hurry so he just runs roughshod over everything, even the labourers. However, Mr. Speaker. . . .

An Hon. Member: Was there a picket line?

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the man who is concerned about the welfare of the people and of the consumer, said that the tenants' view doesn't matter anyway. In other words he said it's a bunch of B.S.

Some Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Barnes: You want me to withdraw? Because I'm quoting somebody, Mr. Minister. "B.S." That's what you said about the tenants' views when they met with you this morning, a meeting that lasted about 15 minutes. They asked you for an ear. They wanted an audience with the minister and he told them that their views didn't matter, that this is a fait accompli, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I think you could find more appropriate and more parliamentary terms to express your view than what you have just used.

Mr. Barnes: I'm only quoting what the minister himself had said.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You wouldn't believe Bruce Yorke?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest to you, hon. member, that on the floor of this House, you'll find a more appropriate term to use in expressing an opinion.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Bruce Yorke, would you believe?

Mr. Barnes: In other words, don't quote the minister.

Mr. Speaker: In other words, do not use an unparliamentary expression on the floor of this House and expect to get away with it, hon. member.

Mr. Barnes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it, with all due respect. I suppose I should choose the quotes that I will use in the House that the minister may utter from time to time.

Hon. Mr. Mair: How long did it take Bruce Yorke to call you, Emery?

Mr. Barnes: But the minister said the re was no point in discussing the principle of this bill because it was going to pass anyway.

Hon. Mr. Mair: They didn't want to talk about it.

Mr. Barnes: He also suggested they'd had plenty of time to speak to the rentalsman and to the

[ Page 5037 ]

Rent Review Commission – a sum total of five hours. I know for a fact that they didn't get an opportunity to have much to do with the principle of this bill, because I tried many times to ask this minister what was going on with the bill. I think it was Bill 58 or whatever it was – the other bill that is now dying on the order paper – and the minister made a joke of it in the House.

I asked him about the cabinet committee that was investigating the question of 'decontrolling rents. He laughed and had fun and said: "Well, don't worry; we'll take care of it." There was no input from the public. Now we find Bill 86 being thrust upon us in a couple of days and they want us to debate it, without any opportunity to go back to the people and find out what they want. The minister was invited, for instance, to choose his own chairman for a public meeting.

Hon. Mr. Mair: September 11, Sunday!

Mr. Barnes: Well, what's the hurry, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Oh, no. Do you work on Sunday?

Mr. Barnes: You've got the power over there. Also, you've got lots of time. We're here to do the people's business; what's the difference whether it's Sunday or whatever day it is? You're talking about 300,000 units; 300,000 people are involved.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Oh, Emery.

Mr. Lauk: You can't get him here on Monday. We couldn't get you here on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Mair: It's the first Monday you've been here in weeks.

Mr. Barnes: You have no difficulty doing other things, Mr. Speaker. But I can tell you, in my opinion, there's nothing to be surprised about, nothing to be shocked about. I recall a comment made by the Health minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in 1975 around May, when he suggested, Mr. Speaker ...

Hon. Mr. Mair: Do you really believe Bruce Yorke?

Mr. Barnes: ... that the Social Credit government was opposed to rent controls and that if they ever got in, they were going to remove it. Then the Premier....

Hon. Mr. Mair: Bruce Yorke....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Mair: He's an avowed Communist. Did you know that?

Mr. Barnes: Thank you. I shouldn't say the Premier. The Leader of the Opposition at that time and now Premier Bill Bennett...

An Hon. Member: Order!

Mr. Barnes: ... about two nights before the election on December 11,1975, said that we would not remove rent controls and he signed his name to it.

Hon. J.A. Nielsen (Minister of the Environment) . Oh, here we go with the ad again. Show us the ad.

Mr. Barnes: I know you've seen this. Everybody has seen it, but it just goes to show you it doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't mean a thing. You'll get plenty of time to argue your point.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I'll be right back.

Mr. Barnes: Okay. I know you'll be back.

We suggested, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to remove rent controls. They were so anxious to get elected that they said. "No, we will not remove rent controls." And the Premier – the Leader of the Opposition – signed his name to it. As soon as they came in, they started meeting with their friends and said: "Now look, how are we going to decontrol without drawing any heat on ourselves and to try and keep those people believing that we're concerned about their welfare?"

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has a fundamental philosophy that is exploitive, classist, elitist and in every respect is of the "have" mentality. It is the power syndrome. It is not a party of compassion and concern for people who are unable to defend themselves and have no mechanism whereby they can gain access to government decision-making.

Let's look at some of the legislation that's coming down. We've got the Vancouver Resources Board being wiped out. They're proud of it because they are going to deny the people access to decision-making.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I know it's out of order. We'll leave that Bill 65 alone. But we also had a year or so ago 175 areas designated as being out of bounds for people on welfare. It's another effort to try and alienate people with that minister saying: "If

[ Page 5038 ]

you don't have any money, don't come to B.C. Stay away from British Columbia if you don't have any cash." There is the minister over there who said it, and now they say that the vacancy rate is down, so we can now remove rent controls. Sure the vacancy rate is down, because you've eliminated everybody in this province who has no means – or you are attempting to – and you're trying to humiliate and degrade the rest of them. You're trying to humiliate and degrade the rest of them. But when you have a million dollars, you can have fun and games in the Legislature and enjoy yourself. The parliamentary system can be one more chess game, one more game of fun for the people who don't have anything to lose. And you know that the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has nothing to lose. That's a game for him. He enjoys being attacked. He thinks it's great folly and fun to have people talking about their problems and struggling and trying to get his attention. He just sits and listens and smiles and watches and says: "Well, we'll play with them for a while and then we'll shaft them." He gets great fun out of that. But I suggest to the minister that people may learn slowly but they do learn. The electorate are getting the message; they are beginning to get the message.

Back to the question of Bill 86, now that I've given you some preliminaries.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the fact, hon. member, that you realize that you are out of order.

Mr. Barnes: Well, I just wanted to do a little background, Mr. Speaker, because when I stand before this House and think about the kind of legislation that is coming down on the House and the comments that are being made by those people on the other side of the House, I get very upset because I know that they are having fun at the expense of the people. I know that this whole game about decontrolling rents is not really an attempt to assist but an attempt to pay off. It's another attempt to classify people by their ability to pay. It's not giving them the opportunity to move freely in this democratic society of ours. It's not giving them the privilege to live where they want and have a proper mix that's representative of the mosaic that we have in this country.

They are suggesting that if you have $500, you can live over here and there will be no control. If you have less, you will have to live somewhere else. Remember, the pressure is always on to get rid of rent controls even in those areas. What it means is that the dollar will be king and the landlord can at his own discretion raise his rent on a $500 situation to .any amount. So there's no need to have an eviction notice. Just raise the rent and we're back to pre-1973.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: Hey, Emery, how much does it cost to live on Happy Valley Road?

Mr. Barnes: How much does it cost to live on Happy Valley Road? Quite a bit. That's where I live. You've got the wrong information. I live on McVicker. You're trying to be cute; he's trying to have fun. But I'll tell you something, Mr. Minister of Rec. and Con. I offered to sell my property to the provincial government at cost and they refused it. They couldn't afford it. So I'm going to tell you something. I've been struggling to try to keep up the notes on it but it's always available at cost. If you need more property to add to your empire, I would be glad to sell. So don't try and embarrass me. I can have it or not have it. It's all right.

I'll tell you one thing. You're not going to confuse the people on this bill that you are bringing in because I can guarantee you that as soon as you get it passed, they're going to be having problems – big problems. The problem that the Premier created last May when he announced that they were going to lower the maximum allowable per annum to 7 per cent from 10.6 was the beginning of a lot of fatal mistakes.

You had the gall to stand here and tell the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that it is going to be retroactive and you're going to resolve that problem. What poppycock! What utter garbage!

There's no way that you are going to do it because that minister knows that he has written to people who have inquired about what's going to happen to those persons who were unable to get their landlords to let them hold it at 7 per cent as of May 1 saying: "We're not going to have anything retroactive; we're not interested in retroactivity. We're going to establish May l." He knew at that time that it should have been January 1.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: You're opposed to 7 per cent?

Mr. Barnes: No, I'm not opposed to 7 per cent, but I don't think that it should be paid. I think that there should be some system, which we will get into later, about how to arrive at what the proper level should be. Maybe we should learn something about other....

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: So you are opposed to 7 per cent.

Mr. Barnes: Who has the floor, Mr. Speaker? You would never permit that to happen in the opposition if we were interjecting and carrying on.

Mr. Loewen: Keep going, Emery; you're doing fine.

[ Page 5039 ]

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. second member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) , if he intends to interject, at least have the courtesy to do it from his own seat?

Mr. Barnes: The 7 per cent joke is something I'm sure the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission will have nothing but headaches with. I can predict that they will never resolve it. It's going to prove to be most burdensome on a lot of people, landlords as well as tenants. There will be people who will not get their just due, and it has caused...

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: Do you prefer 10.6 per cent?

Mr. Barnes: No, it's not a question of the amount, Mr. Minister. It's a question of how this minister, who says he doesn't believe in retroactivity, intends to see that justice is done. He's made a commitment to the renters. How is he going to follow through with it? What's going to happen in the case where someone has moved? What about someone who moved last June or July and is now living in Alberta? If they come back and ask you for their rebate, will you see that they get it?

Hon. Mr. Mair: No, I said I agree that's a problem.

Mr. Barnes: You bet that's a problem, and it's a serious one, because you were playing politics with people last May in making that announcement. As a matter of fact, it was in April that the announcement came and you had about a month or so before May 1, thinking that you had plenty of time. As it turns out, you were confused, couldn't get your organization going and you went past May I into June, into July and August and we still do not have the retroactivity. I suggested to you before that it should have gone ...

Hon. Mr. Mair: Filibuster.

Mr. Barnes: ...back, Mr. Speaker, to January 1. It's very logical because when we brought in that interim rent stabilization bill in the spring of 1973, it was January 1. At the time we brought it in, it had to go back two or three months in order to make it coincide with the fiscal cycle of the calendar year. Then when we brought in the next change, when I think it went up from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, it was also January 1. Then we were suggesting during the last election that had we got in, we were going to go back down to 8 per cent. Had we been returned, it would have been January 1.

Now the minister picks May 1. Immediately he throws 25 per cent of the people off in terms of their right to a fair cycle. Some people are going to end up with nearly two years at the pegged rate while others will get the benefit of the 7 per cent simply because the minister says we don't believe in retroactivity. I suggest that if he's going to go back to May 1, which is retroactive at this point, why not January 1, and do the just thing? If you're going to go back, go all the way back and take care of those people. If you only go back to May 1, you're going to leave 25 per cent of the people deprived of the benefit of the 7 per cent reduction. This is why I say you were playing politics and had no intention of doing anything anyway. Now we have a situation where the Rentalsmen and the Rent Review Commission are going to have nothing but a nightmare trying to deal with this situation. I would suggest that you even have some legal questions. People certainly have a right to require that the government stands behind its promise and its commitment, every single one of them.

I will commit myself to do my best to advise you of anybody I know who has not received his or her proper benefits from your announcement that they wouldn't have to pay more than a 7 per cent increase as of May 1. That includes those people who weren't able to qualify because of your arbitrary date who had already been paying 10.6 per cent as of January 1 and who, by rights, should not have to go into another year at 10.6 per cent right around May 1, and on around that whole year at the pegged 10.6 per cent when everyone else is getting 7 per cent. That's why I say it's an unjust thing. It's unfair and because of that I think you've created a problem for your commission and the rentalsman.

Mr. Minister, there has been a question about the designations. I have wondered about the minister's thinking, Where are you getting the suggestion that you should make designations about where the rent should be, who should have the right to vacate, and when tenants should be subjected to a landlord's whim to recover the premises for himself and to evict because of some problem with being able to pay the rent within 12 days? This seems to be based on some kind of statistical rationale that is not related to the real human condition or the real situation.

It's fine to say that a person should have five days to pay the rent, that if they don't pay it they can appeal within seven days and try and deal with the matter, and that if it goes beyond that, they're kicked out, but I don't know very many people who, over the years, can be right on time unless they're providing post-dated cheques, which I understand are illegal anyway. The reality is that if you're a working person something could happen in the family, or there could be problems with the mail, or any number of things could happen where a person could be in a bind. You're saying that the landlord can legally kick them out – can automatically give them notice – within five days. What's the hurry? You may have a perfectly good tenant, or he could deliberately

[ Page 5040 ]

shanghai someone in the alley and hold him or her for two or three days, until the rent period is up, and then say: "Well, it's too late. You couldn't get here in time."

I think that this is a rather callous way to look at the question of tenants and landlords. It certainly doesn't do much to improve their relationship, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't do much to develop co-operation. In fact, I think that landlords are going to have more difficulties because many of them have had good relationships with their tenants, and despite the Minister's attempt to suggest that we're all for the tenants and not for the landlords, we are for justice. We feel that in a society such as ours, where one is given licensed to sell a premises for rent, the premises should be committed for that purpose, and the onus should be on the landlord to foresee his problems in such a way as to give some security of tenure to the tenant. I think that should be part of the obligations for anyone who gets a licence to rent residential premises, because these are not just itinerant travellers, tourists or transients; these are people who require a stable place to live and want some confidence that they aren't going to be misused and abused by someone who happens to own the property.

The ownership of property should only be a legal term. It should not give them the right to deny people their civil justice and equality under the law, but for some reason tenants are looked upon as less than equal citizens. They are looked upon as subjects to be exploited by those who have the financial means, and the licence is really a sort of quasi-judicial permit to misuse people and take away their privileges, the rights that we assume tenants don't have. But they are citizens; they are the same as you and I. They are people. Any of us may be a tenant at any time. It doesn't matter if a person is in a $5,000-a-month suite or a $100-a-month suite. In my view they are all tenants, paying rent, and should be treated justly. It shouldn't be a question of how much money they have, and we should recognize our responsibilities to see that people have decent housing within their means. We should attempt to further the concept that we use in our own B.C. Housing Management Commission in that we suggest that 25 per cent of the person's income is sufficient. We should try and further that concept in the public-private sector as well, to try to do something about getting the attitudes changed in those people who want to use rental housing as a means of exploiting, or getting a maximum return on their money. Housing is an essential service, an essential utility, like health, education, transportation and so many other things in our society that have become essential. People are becoming more and more susceptible to the whims of political practitioners who want to play games with their lives, and it's all too easy to do. I'm not standing here defending the role of the tenant or the rights of tenants with the view that they are all going to go out and vote for me, because I know better than that.

In fact I'm quite sure that if I did a very careful analysis of the voting returns in my riding, I'd find that I was doing very well to get 30 and 40 per cent in some of those areas. It's not a question of them all being for this party or that party. These are citizens of this province; these are the people who should be looked upon as being necessary to the good health and the good economy of this society. 'Instead, we subject them to the abuse of people who would misuse them and say: "Well, I own the building. "I have the power, and no matter what your circumstances are, out!"

I know there are tenants who are a problem, just as there are landlords who are a problem. But I think the way to go about it is to sit down with representative groups from both sides, including government interests and some mutual interests as well, and try and talk about what we have to do to make people feel more at home and more wanted in our society, not to make them feel that they Are getting privileges all the time. Because really, if everybody's getting privileges, who has the rights? Are there any rights? Are there any things that we can have and feel good about, or do we always have to feel uptight and devious and one-up about everything we get, and try and deprive somebody of something that they've worked hard for, and show no consideration and concern for the human circumstances of which there will be many?

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a landlord serving notice on a family that he now needs those premises that they are living in for his own wife and daughter – whoever, relatives? In this society, people have come to believe that the ownership of land gives you so much power that no one probably sees anything wrong with that. They say: "Oh, what do you mean? The guy owns the house. He should have the right to take it. Kick those guys out. Give them notice." But I'm suggesting to you that if you're going to go into the rental business, you have an obligation to the tenant. The tenant should have some security and some rights, and obligations as well. I certainly am not opposed to tenants having obligations and facing their responsibilities in terms of respecting the property and putting up good-faith money to ensure this through the security deposit system that you've introduced. All of these things are necessary and important. I'm not here to suggest that tenants should be defended at all costs, but I think that tenants have rights, and these should be quite clear. There shouldn't be any question on the part of our government or any government respecting the rights of tenants, respecting the rights of citizenship with some reality about what it takes to make this

[ Page 5041 ]

economy work.

This economy is not just run by those few select people who happen to get elected and happen to have the power to make decisions about how the resources will be managed or not managed, or what will happen, what the graft will be and where it won't be. All of us have rights. But we're not promoting that from up where it belongs and where it should be promoted. We're not saying to those people: "We know you're not demanding these rights, because you're so used to being denied them that you haven't been fighting for them. But we know what your rights should be and we're going to take the leadership and ensure that you have them." Start to tell people what their rights are, instead of trying to promote this whole concept of money as master.

It was only a few years ago in the city of Vancouver when money was voting. You got so many votes in civic elections if you owned property. Each piece of property that you owned was worth so many votes. People who were tenants got no votes. People who were living in the highrises.... The building was voting and the people who were living in the building couldn't vote. Mayor Campbell at one time had 10 votes in the Century Hotel, I think, or the Century apartments, and the people who were in that apartment couldn't vote at all. That's an interesting situation, but that's what we've got to change and turn around. I think we're going to have to start thinking about it, because tenants have rights, and there will always be tenants. Not everybody's going to own land or own buildings or have property. It's a big myth.

Some of those people over there have worked hard, like the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . He loves to talk of how he straggled and got ahead and made things work out. But I'll tell you, there are a lot of people who can't do it, who don't have the capacity to play those games, and maybe are not even committed to those games. There are many people who actually believe in the things that they were taught in Sunday school and in their primary classes when they talked about justice and equality for all, and "do your bit and help your brother and so forth." They believed that and they never tried to get ahead, never tried to exploit the system.

Mr. Speaker: Now may I suggest, hon. member, that you get back to the principle of the bill that we are debating?

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I think I am right on the principle of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry that I have to suggest that you're not, but ...

Mr. Barnes: This is a bill of classism, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: ... you must relate your remarks to the principle of this particular bill. However interesting the discussion might be, it's not on the principle of the bill at the present time.

Mr. Barnes: I appreciate what you're saying. You're being very technical, and technically you're correct, But you see, it's not the technical aspects which we need to address ourselves to; it's the subtleties, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All I'm suggesting is that you address yourself to the principle of the bill that is before us tonight, hon. member.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, when I came here, as I say, I was unable to hear the minister's remarks. But I knew that we'd have difficulty debating this bill, because it's so loaded that one has to calm himself in order to be rational with it. It is a very emotional thing when you think of what this government is actually doing. I commented the other day about how it has methodically attempted to divide this community; and how this bill of classism, this bill of talking about your dollar value, will determine where and how you live and what rights you'll have and not have; the 175 areas where welfare people couldn't live; how they're going to wipe out the VRB. When you think about the kinds of things that this government is attempting to do – trying to undermine the labour movement in this province and keep people from the collective bargaining – it is reason for everybody to be alarmed and concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, may I just say once more ...

Mr. Barnes: That's fine, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: . . . that there is a principle to this bill which you have yet to be on in the last few minutes? All I'm suggesting is that you return to the principle of the bill that's before us. The philosophical arguments that may or may not be in order on some other piece of legislation are not necessarily in order right at the moment.

Mr. Barnes: Okay, Mr. Speaker. The bill replaces the old Landlord and Tenant Act. It also replaces an Act that was on the order paper to reduce rent increases from 10.6 per cent to 7 per cent. I'd like for the minister to explain to us why he introduced the bill if he had no intention of calling it for debate. Why did he introduce the 7 per cent bill if he had no intention of calling it for debate? Is he

[ Page 5042 ]

that confused in not knowing what he was doing? Or is he getting bad advice from somebody? What's going on? I'd like to know, because I'll tell you, he's certainly confused the people in this province – and not just the tenants, but the landlords as well.

He caused confusion from one end of the province to the other, and it is still confused, including his own staff and including the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission. Everybody is confused. They do not know what is going on. Some people have held back the 7 per cent, some have not. I'll tell you, it's all because of the political mileage. I remember the headlines last April, when the Premier of the province went out saying, "We're going to reduce rents to 7 per cent." Everybody says: "Oh, great! Social Credit is so nice. They're not going to remove rent controls; they're going to reduce them down a little bit and we're all doing well."

We told you guys you were wrong when you said that Social Credit was going to remove rent controls if they got elected. I couldn't say anything. I said: "I must admit – 7 per cent – that's not bad. If we can get them now to consider trying to lower even that to something more reasonable, like 3 or 4 per cent, depending on circumstances, and allow some public input from the people who are affected, maybe we're getting somewhere." They never did anything on it. The 7 per cent never became a reality. It never happened, in fact.

Instead of dealing with that, they come up with this big bombshell where they're going to take away people's rights as tenants, who now find that there is no security. There's no way in the world that people who go into any tenancy right now or in the future after this bill is passed are going to feel safe. Because if the landlord can't get you one way, he'll get you another. If you're not in the category of paying over $500 a month, Mr. Speaker, where you will be subjected anyway to eviction – because he can jack the price up, the sky's the limit, and he can get rid of anybody whether he likes them or not – he'll get you on the other end. Because he's giving them the permission to convert or to do any number of things – to change it into a co-operative or whatever. He has the option of changing a residential tenancy into any kind of other operation, and unnoticed. I believe it's something like either 90 days or 120. Anyway, they give notice.

Any idea as far as I'm concerned is, why should a landlord who applies for a licence to rent have the option at the expense of the tenants, who should have some tenure of security when they're living in a residence? And not just a year.

I mean, how can we have any stability in the rental field if we're going to cater to the whims of people who are investing only for profit? The only reason they are investing is for profit and as soon as they lose the margin of profit, or don't feel the returns are right, then the poor government and the poor people of the province, and all over the country, really, are subjected to threats: "Well, if you don't treat us right, then you won't have any place to stay."

Well, on an essential-service commodity such as that, why should we tolerate it? Are we running a government for the people, or are the people who happen to have a power block on one aspect of the economy going to dictate to the people what it's going to be? I don't think we can afford it. I don't think we can control costs. I don't think we can seriously convince anyone that when we join the anti-inflation programme and try to set an example of how we intend to restrain ourselves, we're going to let things like that happen out there in the community. It's ridiculous. It's an absolute joke. That's like the Premier saying: "Fine, we're going to join the anti-inflation programme as soon as we jack up everything – the taxes, and ICBC, and the ferry – and then, after we get everything jacked up, we'll tell everybody they've got to hold the line." You know, I don't think the people are going to buy that.

I think that this is a pathetic, sad, very dismal time for residents. I don't think it is a surprise, quite frankly, although I had hoped the Premier would be politically afraid to go back on a promise. I'm not surprised because going back on promises is quite characteristic of this administration, this coalition of opportunists. I don't think they have fooled anyone. I think when you consider the short time that this coalition has had to organize itself as a serious, responsible governing body, having come from varying interests – Liberals, Conservatives, Action Canada, former Socreds, independents, and what have you, they had to make a lot of deals. There were a lot of interests that had to be met with the different groups you came from. When you come together and start talking about doing something as a joint venture on behalf of the people of British Columbia, you've first got to take care of your commitments, because you didn't join that group for nothing.

How can a Liberal suddenly become a Socred? In all sincerity, how can a Liberal suddenly become a Socred, unless there's no such thing as a Socred? Maybe it's just analogous to being an opportunist. Maybe there's no difference between the two. You can smile, Mr. Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm) , but I think if you have any conscience you would think about that. I think the people of British Columbia, when they join a party, believe in certain principles and platforms.

Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm (Minister of Human Resources): It feels great. I never felt better.

Mr. Barnes: No, because that's the way you are built. You thrive on it. Well, don't worry, I can't vote you out. You've got to go out and face the people for

[ Page 5043 ]

your actions.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, may I assist you in getting back to the principle of the bill, please?

Mr. Barnes: The same with your colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Mair: We all do – and you.

Mr. Barnes: No, there's no question about whether I have to. We're talking about the government now. We're talking about the one who is making the laws. We're talking about the ones who are not listening to the people who are trying to get an audience with this government.

Mr. Speaker, just this afternoon, the minister.... I don't know why he even took the time to listen to that group because he told them it was a fait accompli. We don't have to debate the principle of this bill, or any other aspect, because it's going to pass. That would come as a shock to a lot of people in the province who believe there is something called democracy going on in this Legislature and that we stand up here and debate because we have some hope.

You know, there are actually people who believe that if we appeal to the decency and the concern of the ministers over there they will actually change their minds. They actually believe that! But when you made those remarks about a fait accompli, they can forget it. There is no hope.

What we're debating in here is a waste; we're just wasting our time. The minister said it himself. "So why don't you sit down, " he says, "and let me close the debate?"

The only person on that whole side, I think, who is capable of changing his mind is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . The only reason I suggest that he'll do it is because he's been known to jump ship before. Duck and dodge, escape and find the road of least resistance.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member...

Mr. Barnes: I know that we can get to him on section 28 of the Municipal Amendment Act, eventually, because he can feel the heat out there.

Mr. Speaker: ... may I draw two things to your attention? First of all, you're on your final three minutes and, secondly, could you get back to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there will be a lot of debate on this bill when we go to committee stage.

An Hon. Member: We have a lot of time.

Mr. Barnes: There will be a lot of time, that's true, but there will be a lot of debate on some very, very serious moves by this government to deprive people of their civil rights.

Hon. Mr. Mair: We'll be here.

Mr. Barnes: You've made a czar out of the rentalsman. I don't think the rentalsman wants to be a czar, but you've thrust all this power upon him and forced him to have to dictate to people what's going to happen. You have put him on the hot seat. Not only have you put him on the hot seat but you’ve put him in the position where he has some labour problems, I understand, in. trying to deal with his delegates. But that's going to be a real hot potato.

If you really respected him and wanted to give him a break you'd make him answerable to the Legislature. You'd take the heat off him so he could come in here and get some directions from people who are concerned instead of having those politics being played behind the scene. But oh, no. He's in the hot seat, But he's not by himself – the minister is in the hot seat too.

I'll see you in committee stage, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mrs. E.E. Dailly (Burnaby North): I certainly would feel remiss if I didn't take part in this debate.

I have a great number of tenants in the riding which I represent. I am not only speaking for those tenants, but for all tenants, of course, in the province of British Columbia who are going to suffer financial hardship because this government is going to remove Tent controls in this province. This is the same government which has already imposed severe financial hardships on the people of this province.

But it's not unexpected. I know when I was campaigning in Burnaby North in the last election, as was pointed out by one of our other members from Victoria, almost every landlord of any large apartment had a sign up: "Vote Social Credit." It was quite obvious that they knew that if they could persuade people to vote Social Credit, the philosophy of the Social Credit Party would bring about the removal of rent controls. Yet as was also pointed out, the tenants themselves were not carrying those signs.

Yet it was only a matter of time. I'm not surprised that we're up here tonight debating this bill. It was just a matter of time. It's a bill that's been brought in, Mr. Speaker, by a very cynical government, and, may I say also, by a very cynical minister. It's a cynical government because they didn't have the courage to stand up when they were campaigning and tell the people of this province exactly what they were going to do. They promised they were going to keep rent controls. Yet all of us who knew this party knew that we would inevitably face an evening like this where

[ Page 5044 ]

they would bring in a piece of legislation to remove rent controls. It's a cynical act by a cynical government.

Let's look at this minister's cynicism in handling this whole affair. On June 30,1977, this minister met with the B.C. tenants' organization and some other smaller tenants' association groups. When they left this minister's office what did they say? "We've received a firm commitment from Consumer Affairs minister Rafe Mair to meet with him before first and second reading of the new rent legislation bill. This promise was obtained during a half-hour meeting between Mair and some 50 tenant spokesmen." So they left believing they were going to have an opportunity to meet with the minister before the first and second reading of this bill.

An Hon. Member: Did they get that in writing?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Are you sure that's accurate?

Mrs. Dailly: Did they have an opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Yes.

Mrs. Dailly: Well, Mr. Minister, I think then you should tell us when you have an opportunity just how many meetings you had and what sort of input these groups had with you.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I'd be delighted.

Mrs. Dailly: I understand you did have a very quick meeting with them today, and from all the reports I have, your cynicism showed through again – not only your cynicism, but I understand that you were insulting to the group. It is very easy to be insulting to a group when you are in the government. You have the power, and you are philosophically committed to this bill, so why not level with them? Why even bother meeting with them if you have no intention of receiving any input or if you have no intention of making any changes? I consider that the height of cynicism.

Now if the minister actually gave input and gave an opportunity for input to these groups, I think he should stand up and tell us. But that most certainly is not our information. Certainly we will be anxious to hear from the minister. I'm asking about input. I'm not talking about a meeting where you simply listen to them, insult them and make it quite clear that this bill is going through and that's that. It's the height of arrogance from this cynical minister who puts on an appearance of being a very friendly, jocular minister, but I don't think his actions in his handling of this bill prove this. I don't think the citizens and the tenants of B.C. are going to feel very jocular towards this minister when they find their rents going up to an exorbitant degree because of the action of this minister and this government.

As I say, I'm not at all surprised, Mr. Speaker, to be standing here tonight opposing this, It was inevitable, because this is a Social Credit philosophy. They had made the promise, obviously, somewhere along the line, to the landowners. As a matter of fact, I recall getting a call during the last campaign that some landlords had already moved on going above the regulatory rent increase that had been established by the NDP government – before the election results were even in! It was just an assumption that once the Socreds came in, the sky was the limit. It's just been a matter of time. Now we've reached the night and the sky is the limit for the friends of the Social Credit party. Yet the tenants of this province are going to be the victims again.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's a shameful night to even have to be on our feet standing up for the rights of the tenants of B.C. who make up a great percentage of the citizens in my riding and a great percentage of the people in this province. I'm ashamed of this government; I'm ashamed of your legislation; I'm ashamed that I even have to be up here in this House tonight debating such a bill.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the relief of the minister, I intend to be brief. I just want to first of all publicly thank the Rentalsman and the rent review commissioners for the job that they have done in very difficult circumstances. Bringing in rent control legislation under any circumstances in an economy like ours is extremely difficult. A major part of making the rent controls work, of course, is the staff and the personnel who are asked to implement the legislation of the day.

In drawing up the legislation, I recall the great deal of difficulty we had in many cabinet meetings, dealing with an issue that was certainly raging and pressing at the time that we brought rent controls in. Certainly the economic actions of this government have lessened the pressures that existed when the economy was booming under the New Democratic Party. People were moving in and looking for jobs and were willing to make investments in homes. Since the economy has made a dramatic turndown under Social Credit, of course, the vacancy rate is much higher. As for Barrie Clark personally, he did sit in this House as an MLA, and I think that training ground, such as we are witnessing tonight, which has neither improved nor degenerated but has remained stable, has stood him in good stead. Aside from any partisan comments that would be unfairly made about him, he's done an outstanding job, in my

[ Page 5045 ]

opinion, as a rentalsman.

I want to say that the major mistake in this bill is one of philosophy and, coincidentally, one of timing, in my opinion. In terms of philosophy, I think it is a mistake to tell the electorate one thing and do exactly the opposite. I think my colleague for Burnaby North hit upon the most appropriate word. It's cynicism.

I frankly don't think it's wise to ... it may be clever, politically, but I don't think it's wise to put ads in the newspapers, solemnly signed by the present , Premier, saying: "I promise that we will not remove rent controls." Those were the ads; they were not embellished beyond that, Mr. Minister. Perhaps if you want a copy, I can send one over. They certainly appeared in the downtown Vancouver ridings and rent control was an issue of the election campaign. A pledge by the Social Credit, signed by Bill Bennett at the time, was: "We will not abolish rent control."

If this were the only thing that the government went back on, it wouldn't be so much a measure of cynicism. Rut the fact is, it is one of a league of broken promises signed by the present Premier. The other outstanding example, of course, given by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was when the Premier promised not to close down the working parts of the sulphite mill of Can-Cel in Prince Rupert. Then he did close it down, and then denied it was his signature on the ad. One fib on top of another. Tonight we had to have the present Premier's signature verified by that writing expert, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who's now recorded in Hansard as giving a nod, recognizing the Premier's signature, the same as on your cheque.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that giving a nod or having a nod?

MR. BARRETT: Well, a wink is as good as a nod. That's what really that ad was all about – a wink is as good as a nod to the landlord. Landlords – or any citizen of British Columbia – if the Premier signs a promise, don't worry, He'll go against his own word. A wink's as good as a nod. The Premier signs an ad and says "I won't hurt the tenants, " and then winks. "It's okay, landlords. I am going to lie in this ad; a wink's as good as a nod." The minister's 'entitled to laugh about it, because the tenants were lied to by Social Credit and were lied to by the leader of that party in that campaign. There's no question about that.

We come to the second aspect in terms of the psychological situation we're faced with. The Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. MR. Wolfe) are responsible for giving fiscal leadership to this province, They're making solemn statements now that no one is to break the AIR regulations and that if the Liberals back off the federal....

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member....

Mr. Barrett: Yes, I'm coming to that, because part and parcel of the AIR agreement was an agreement across this country that the provinces go in to rent control. Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker, arid I have to remind the people of that. When the Prime Minister of this country called all the Premiers together, he said, "My dear friends, I have a later conversion now to wage and price controls and I am calling on all the provinces to go in to rent control. And as an illustration, follow the example of British Columbia." The federal Prime Minister said that, a member of the same party that you belonged to, my friend. The federal Prime Minister said that if the plan is to work, there has to be rent control in this country. I agreed with the federal Prime Minister. If you're going to control wages and prices, then you must control rents as well.

What is the situation today? This government has said to its own civil servants through the Minister of Finance ... it's secretly giving instructions to set up an employers' council for municipal bargaining contracts. Confidential documents were distributed, Mr. Chairman, to municipal administrations, instructing them on how to come together under financing and staff, by that Minister of Finance, against municipal workers. That is going on. Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) doesn't even know it. Perhaps you don't know about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. member. I must insist that you get back to the principle of this bill.

An Hon. Member: You're wrong.

Mr. Barrett: I'm wrong? Is the Minister of Finance not financing confidential documents, led by a staff member in his department? If I release the document, will you say I'm wrong then?

An Hon. Member: Yes, I will.

Mr. Barrett. Okay. That's fine.

Interjections.

Mr. Barrett: That's fine. I stand here and make the accusation that a confidential document has been circulated and that staff in the Finance department of the B.C. government is setting up an employers' council at the municipal level to move toward collective negotiating by municipal officials, instigated by that government and the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the principle of this bill.

[ Page 5046 ]

Mr. Barrett: That has the principle related to this. If you are asking employees....

Hon. L.A. Williams (Minister of Labour): Wrong again!

Mr. Barrett: Wrong again. Will you resign your seat if I'm wrong? Will you resign? I'm not wrong, Mr. Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Please address the chair, hon. member.

Mr. Barrett: What's tragic is that it's going on behind your back if you're professing ignorance of it. That's not the only thing that's going on behind your back. You attempt to be rational in that group, while they're knifing you left and right.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I'm telling you that if you're going to ask people to accept the removal of rent control, then you've got to have the guts and the decency to face them and say that you won't control their wages either. How can you expect people to have some faith and belief in the government of the day if you say to workers: "You keep your wages down, but we're going to let the landlords goose the rents"? Do you expect a hard-working man to come home and face his wife and say: "Look, we've got to understand and agree with the government. We must sacrifice. Don't ask me to go to a government employees or municipal employees union meeting and ask for an increase in wages. Just accept an increase in our rents as our part of the fight against inflation."

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, meetings have taken place and are taking place with a government plan to organize a central negotiating group for all municipal organizations. That's a fact. That's true, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Will you resign if you're wrong?

Mr. Barrett: Do you deny that a confidential document has been circulated under the auspices of the Ministry of Finance to set up such....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Barrett: I'll stake my seat against his on this issue.

An Hon. Member: In West Vancouver?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, please address the chair.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is nervous because he either.... Sorry, Mr. Speaker, you don't have a three-cornered hat. It's a little bit difficult.

Interjection.

Mr. Barrett: It is a fact.... Well, at least we don't have points.

An Hon. Member: Don't bet on that.

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): You haven't made a point yet tonight.

Mr. Barrett: Oh, take another fix, will you? The poor Minister of Health is now back in his element because the real Minister of Health is back from Norway. Tell them what to do at UBC.

Mr. Speaker, what is going on here is a denial of a commitment made by Social Credit during the election campaign. It is a betrayal in terms of asking people of this province to restrain themselves in wages while they remove rent controls, and then to dump the thing on the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission, and wash your hands of it after you've made a philosophical commitment. You did not tell the truth to the people in the election campaign. Not you personally, because you didn't know that you were going to be the minister, but your leader, the fellow who some of you are afraid to call Bill. Just plain Bill, live in an ad in the newspaper, saying that rent controls would not be removed. Just plain Bill signed it, plain Bill Bennett, that's what the ad said. Since he's become king, perhaps his royal dispensation.... I want to tell you that if you're afraid to screw up your courage to speak to him, we're not afraid, and we're telling you bluntly and plainly: he did not tell the truth in the election campaign when he said that he would abolish rent controls. That's plain and simple. If you fellows a-re too nerveless to screw up your courage to go in and say what you think to just plain Bill, well, that's okay, too.

An Hon. Member: Read that paragraph.

Mr. Barrett: This has been read a number of times in the record: "putting fear in the minds of British Columbians." Yes, my good friend Emery, I know what happened during the election campaign, and this was part of the ad. We know what they said. They don't care; it doesn't matter to them. When they go out making more speeches telling ordinary working people of this province to suppress their demands for wages – and pensioners that they can't pass along the increase in their old-age pension from Ottawa because the member for Surrey (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 5047 ]

Vander Zalm) is counting his dollars – and they come in and lift the rent controls and say make your budget balance out there, they're not kidding anybody. This is a government of privilege, hypocrisy and cynicism. This minister believes that the move he's making tonight is the correct one.

I think he's wrong, I don't hold him responsible for the lies said during the election campaign, but I think he's wrong. I think you're headed for trouble and I think the first area you're going to get it is when you try to manipulate bargaining situations and control negotiations, but lift rent controls at the same time. You're asking for hostility from people in a generally quiet community. When on the one hand you're sitting in the back room trying to mix a negotiation with municipal workers to hold their wages down with confidential documents gathering research information and setting up a central bargaining committee against them, and you lift the rent controls with the other hand, you're asking for plenty of trouble. Then, if you ask the Premier to stand up and say: "Well, we didn't mean it, " or "we promise to do this, we promise to do that, " there is a catalogue of lies in terms of promises. You haven't got any credits left there, and this minister is going to be left holding the bag in that respect. This is a government that tells lies, Mr. Speaker, and tonight one of those lies is coming home to roost.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I hope that you in the House will recognize that it indeed has been a long day. I do have an obligation to answer a great number of questions that were raised earlier in the day, and I will want to refer to my notes in order to do so. Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I may, bring things back to a little bit of perspective.

In talking about decontrol of rent, we're not talking, contrary to the suggestions made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and echoed by others, of an overall decontrol of all rents that are now in control or anything close to it. Nobody has even suggested that, except members of the opposition. They've done so, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with the result of using scare tactics, with the result of causing hysteria. Whether they intended that result or not, I leave up to them and their conscience. But the headlines in the Victoria Times about 10 days ago that indicated to old age pensioners and people on welfare and things of that nature that they were going to have the rent controls lifted – they were going to be out in the streets -have no basis in any statement made by me and any member of this government. It has no basis whatever.

You can say all these things if you want, and you can try to pick up your brownie points, and so be it. You have to live with this. But I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the past, as the Premier has said, and as all members of this government have said, we do not intend to decontrol rents save and except where the vacancy rate warrants it, and a vacancy rate certainly does not warrant it in the disadvantaged areas that the members opposite have been talking about.

Now having, I hope, made that point for once and for all, the people who are disadvantaged; the people who are elderly; the people who have difficulty in raising enough of their disposable income to make rent; the people who the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about where one-third or two-thirds of their income go to rent.... Those people have nothing to fear from anything that this government proposes. I hope the public will understand that for once and for all.

I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, if I may go back to the points made by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . I think it's fair to categorize most of his statements as being an enunciation of the political philosophy of his party, which is proper. That's what he's there for. That we don't agree in political philosophy, I think, Mr. Member, is evident. That's nothing for you to be ashamed of, nor for me to be ashamed of. That's what democracy is all about.

The specific points that you raised, I think, with one or two exceptions, probably could be dealt with in committee on the point-by-point basis. I did want to deal with the question, however, of the designation of hotels in the downtown east side of Vancouver. I think you were the one who raised that. I think that the bill before the House goes a long way to improving this situation that the previous government tried to address itself to. I don't blame them for not having addressed themselves to it in the best possible way, because, after all, it was a case of first instance. I think this Act addresses itself to that situation in a much better way. I understand that you have said the rentalsman has too much power, but I think it gives the rentalsman power in an area that is very necessary. He could walk in without concerning himself with the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Human Resources or anything like that and make the designations that are necessary to bring some justice in an area where a great deal needs to be done.

I listened with great interest, of course, as I always do, to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I think, if I understood his points correctly, most of the things he wants to talk about we can talk about in committee. If I may just look at my notes, I think that one point he did raise that I would like to deal with for the moment is the question of flexibility to the rentalsman – indeed, I suppose, to the government, is what his point really was.

I think, Mr. Member, it can best be said this way. I don't imagine that if you took a hundred people with any degree of expertise in the area of rent control, you would find two opinions the same. At the same

[ Page 5048 ]

time, you have different economic factors coming into play – worldwide factors, continent wide factors. Most of all you have intergovernmental factors, which put any government such as ours in a position of having to react almost on a daily basis to different stimuli which affect the situation insofar as rent control is concerned. I don't like order-in-council type of government, Mr. Member, I'll tell you frankly. But to lock percentages into legislation or lock into legislation rules and regulations which cannot be changed on a day-to-day basis in this type of situation I do not think is doing the public of British Columbia service.

I think this is one area where the government must be given flexibility. That flexibility, of course, is subject to accountability in this House. There's no question about that. I would expect that the members here would ensure that the government, whether it's this particular political party or another political party in a future day, will do what is right or will be held accountable in the House and before the people.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): What about the rentalsman's budget?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Member, because I personally feel that the rentalsman ought to have security of tenure and, within the constraints of government, security of budget.

Mr. Barnes: What about security for the tenants?

Hon. Mr. Mair: We'll get to that in due course, Mr. Member. You were a little late. You didn't hear it all today. You may have been a witness in the first member's lawsuit, for all I know. But neither of you were here this afternoon, so you didn't hear what went on.

I want to deal with the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) remarks in due course, so if I be permitted just to finish off the member for Oak Bay, I think he should not only have security of tenure, but he should, within the power it's capable of any government to give, have security of financial freedom.

Now we're subject obviously to the constraints of the House. We can't say to a rentalsman: "You have a budget of X dollars but, with a wink of the eye, you can spend Y dollars and we won't question you?" We have to have a degree of responsibility.

In order to back up what I'm saying, Mr. Member, I have already got to the point of commissioning a study into the rentalsman's office in order to make it more efficient. We have already instituted programmes which will decentralize a good deal of the rentalsman's office so he'll be able to reach more remote parts of the province without relying upon the long-distance telephone call. I think it's safe to say that this government takes the rentalsman's position very, very seriously indeed, and he will have a favourable hearing from the government at all times in terms of finances, and in other areas as well.

Dealing with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I have a note which I hope he will not find facetious, because I don't mean it that way. I meant to say to him that I wished I had called upon him to second my speech because I thought the research he had done amply backed up the position the government must take on rent decontrol. It would be much easier for us to say that we'll sweep it all under the carpet, let the next election go by and have a worse problem face the next government, whether it be this party or another party, but it's something to which we must address ourselves.

I think we all know that rent controls in all areas on a temporary basis in the last few years have brought great benefits to tenants, and we all know that on a permanent or long-term basis they bring very disastrous side-effects. I think it was one of the economists whom you quoted, Mr. Member, who, if I may paraphrase him, said that there's only one better way to devastate a city than by bombing it, and that's by rent control. This has proved to be true in cities like New York, Oakland, California, and places like that, where by putting the obligation of maintaining the tenant upon the landlord – and that is indeed what you're doing, if the government won't do it by its own aid by having rent control and forcing the landlord to, in effect, finance the tenant – it means that two things are going to happen: (1) landlords won't come into the investment picture and they won't invest in apartment houses, and (2) if they happen to own them they won't repair them and, if necessary, will walk away from them. This has happened in New York and it can't be allowed to happen here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I can't take my place without mentioning for a moment the position taken by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will keep my remarks as much in order as he did, perhaps even more. Now he came into the House on one of his infrequent visits today and, as I recall, criticized one of my colleagues for not being in the House during question period. I have kept statistics. He has been here for three out of the last eight question periods himself. He makes a great point, Mr. Speaker, of rising to complain about the Premier and about ads. I heard on the radio tonight, read in the newspaper that he accused the Premier of lying to this House. He makes charges that he can't back up.

As a matter of fact, he said today in the House,

[ Page 5049 ]

Mr. Speaker, that some deal had been made between this party and the landlords. He said that this was some secret deal that we would take off rent controls if only they would elect us. Now that's rather curious because of all the violent reactions I've had to this bill, the most violent has come from the landlords – not from the tenants, but from the landlords.

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): That's not what you said this morning.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's a curious thing. If he makes the statement outside of the House that some deal has been made between me, or some of my colleagues, or this party – some fraudulent deal – I'm entitled to stand up and call him a liar if he says it outside of the House. I'm entitled to do that. But if he says the same thing inside the House, I can't. A curious thing, democracy, isn't it? He can tell a lie outside of the House and I can call him a liar. He can make the same statement inside the House and I have to accept the fact that he's an honourable gentleman. It is indeed a curious world in which we live.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to close on only one further word. I hope the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is listening because he's the Whip and what I have to say I think in large measure will govern the way I react towards the opposition in future, and perhaps, in some way, how the government will react. I want to know whether he was serious in his criticism of me today in bringing to the attention of the member opposite, who is my critic, in advance the subject matter of the bill I propose and the speech that I intend to make. It really doesn't matter very much to me. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. I had hoped that by giving some advance notice to that member, by talking to that member, by putting my arm around him, if you will, and going, "ho, ho, ho, " we might get a little civilization in this House, but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. If this government does not co-operate with the opposition, then we're criticized to the heights, to the heavens. If we come along and we do co-operate, we do make our officials available, and say: "Please go and talk to the opposition. . . ." It wasn't just the rentalsman. It was the Rent Review Commission as well. If we do go to our opposite member and say, "Here, this is the bill, this is what we're going to do, and this is what I'm going to say about it, " we're criticized for that.

Now I ask the Whip, and I ask the members opposite, Mr. Speaker: which way is it going to be? How do you want it? Really, except as a matter of convenience, it doesn't matter very much. I would like to do it the easy, civilized way but, Mr. Member, if you don't want it that way, please let me know. I think what I'll do is this, Mr. Member, and I'll put it to you in these terms: the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) find it quite acceptable for me to give them advance notice of anything we're going to do in terms of bringing in legislation. If you want it, please come and ask and I'll be only too happy to let you have, it, but I'll take from your remarks today, in the absence of something to the contrary, Mr. Member for New Westminster, that you don't want us to give you advance notice.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, back to this bill, please, if you will.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am only answering what the member for New Westminster said in debate this afternoon.

An Hon. Member: He was crazy. He called you an old smoothie.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Oh! Well then, obviously he's crazy!

Mr. Speaker, I think that in order to restore some sense of dignity to the proceedings – which it's difficult to restore dignity to – let me....

Mr. Cocke: In that case, sit down.

Hon. Mr. Mair: You don't want to hear any more? Give them more or no more? I think that I should mention one other issue and then I will take my seat, thank you very much.

Yes, I'd like to mention the question that was raised by a couple of members opposite about input from tenants' groups. The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) both raised the question of whether or not these groups had had sufficient input. I want to tell you that Mr. Bruce Yorke has political opinions to which he's entitled. I honour those political opinions; he's welcome to them.

Mr. Barnes: He's not the only tenant.

Hon. Mr. Mair: If his political opinions were held universally, the rest of us wouldn't be entitled to any political opinions. But that's neither here nor there. He's a self-avowed Communist and he's entitled to be one. But I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I went to two meetings with Mr. Yorke. One was

[ Page 5050 ]

not in my office, as suggested, it was in one of the three rooms, the Maple Room or whatever the devil it was, last June. I had two chances in that one: slim and none. I have independent witnesses to prove that.

But notwithstanding that, Mr. Yorke was given ten months' advance notice of the basic tenets of the bill we proposed. He was given every opportunity to talk to members of both the Rent Review Commission as well as the rentalsman on any occasion he wanted. Not only were all telephone calls and all letters answered, they were invited from these people. He was the one who didn't answer.

I went over to Vancouver today because Mr. Yorke said that he couldn't afford to come to Victoria over the last 10 days. I went to meet him and, were it not for the fact that I knew what was coming, it would be like a lamb to slaughter. He didn't want to talk about the principle of the bill; he wanted to talk about politics – his politics. He wanted to create a situation where he could talk to the press, and I must say that he won. He got his headlines; he got to the press and he got his story. Mind you, if I had not gone, he would have also got his headlines and his story.

I suppose that's really the story of this bill, Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole thing: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I suppose that's politics.

But I want the House to know that Mr. Yorke does not, as the member opposite indicates, represent all the tenants, although he alleges he does. But he doesn't. He alleges that he represents 500,000 tenants and he talks to you as if he does. Evidently, from your remarks in the House, you and some of your colleagues must believe him.

Nevertheless, I did everything that anybody could be expected to do for that man and all of the people whom he represents. I have met him and all of his colleagues on every occasion they have asked me to. I've answered every piece of mail they have directed to me and every telephone call, and so have the people who work for me. He has got all that he has been entitled to and he has given us back nothing in terms of input, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS – 28

NAYS – 14

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

Hon. Mr. Mair: In view of the enthusiasm of the members opposite for the reduction of the rent increase to 7 per cent, I presume I'll have the unanimous leave of the House to proceed to consideration by committee.

An Hon. Member: No.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Speaker, I think that you heard some noes, did you?

Mr. Speaker: I heard some noes.

Bill 86, Residential Tenancy 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: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 73, Mineral Act.

MINERAL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 73) Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston) I was just going to ask the minister if he's had a chance to contact anyone from International Hydrodynamics or the people who developed the Pisces sub, or any of these people, and has he made any effort to find out just how advanced British Columbia is in terms of underwater exploration technology?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I attempted to contact the member for Nelson-Creston on the weekend to establish the location of these people and ...

Mr. Nicolson: I went out looking for you and

[ Page 5051 ]

guess where I found you?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: ... he wasn't available, Mr. Chairman.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the minister would have wanted to pass this section so fast because it's his chance to remedy a terrible oversight in this bill. The bill that is being repealed has a section that guarantees the right of the free miner against the bureaucrat, against sins of omission and commission and Ted tape and paperwork that may occur from time to time in the recording of mining claims. Section 5 of the now Act is the one that speaks about some of the freedoms of the free miner, as he is called in our province. Some of the language of the old Act is omitted. In my amendments which I proposed, I've copied the old Act exactly, which is as follows: "No free miner shall suffer from any acts of omission or commission or delays on the part of any government official if such can be proven." Mr. Chairman, this is not only a principle of justice reflected in these words; it's a principle that's tested in time. It's been in the statutes of the province of British Columbia for many, many years.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Prehistoric.

Mr. Gibson: Prehistoric, the minister says. It has served us since the beginning of recorded time and the minister wants to throw it out.

Mr. Wallace: It's the same as the government-, it's prehistoric too.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: So are you.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the onus of proof under this section – under this amendment – if adopted – as in the previous Act, would still be on the free miner to prove that he had been treated wrongly by the government or its officials in any capacity. If it so happened that, because of the mistake of a recording officer or any other official of the Department of Mines, the rights of a free miner were suspended or trampled upon, or a claim not properly registered because of the error of a government official, under this section the free miner would have recourse.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: No.

Mr. Gibson: Accordingly, because it seems to me this is the proper place in the bill to put it since it is being taken out of the old bill, I move a new section, 5 (a) , which will add to the rights of the free miner specified here – it's standing in my name on the order paper – "no free miner shall suffer from any acts of omission or commission or delays on the part of any government official if such can be proven." And I so move. I'm confident that the minister will accept the amendment which stood so long on the statute books of the province of British Columbia during the time of the previous Social Credit government when he was a minister, and that governed mining in his district of Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Columbia River.

Mr. Gibson: Columbia River, and worked very well.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Have you ever been in that part of the province?

Mr. Gibson: I'm convinced that the minister with his well known propensity to stand up – or at least I hope – for the little man....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: No. Rubbish.

Mr. Gibson: ... against the exigencies of bureaucracy will see the merit of this particular section and will accept it on behalf of the government, and I so move, Mr. Chairman.

An Hon. Member: Come on, Jim. You're for the little man.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. minister, I believe this would add a new section.

Mr. Gibson: No, it supplements the section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It adds a new principle entirely to the section, Mr. Chairman, because section 5 deals with . . . "Failure to renew a free miner

[ Page 5052 ]

certificate does not affect title to mining property." This has no relationship whatsoever to section 5. It's a new section that is attempting to infuse to section 5, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gibson: Well, will you accept it anyway?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's one which I see no merit in. It's being proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. It's an attack against the integrity of the civil service.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's one which is well covered in access to the courts on the part of the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Wallace: The bureaucrat can do no wrong.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: It's one which has been prehistoric in the Mineral Act and one which is not included in any other Acts in the province of British Columbia. It's one which leaves the civil service wide open to lawsuits unnecessarily, and it's one section which is unnecessary at this time, because of other avenues of justice that exist in this province, Mr. Chairman. I reject the amendment proposed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, because we believe that there are other means in which justice can be sought, under other statutes of this province.

Mr. Lauk: Well, I'm glad to see that the minister recognizes the very valuable and overdue Crown proceedings Act that was brought in by the NDP. It allowed people without fiat to sue the Crown. For 20 years we were behind every other province in this country. The previous Social Credit administration ignored. . . .

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I thought that would bring on the speech.

Mr. Lauk: And now the Minister of Mines is lauding that Act as providing access to the courts. I was going to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, until the hon. Minister of Mines stood up and said it was prehistoric. The Minister of Mines is the most foremost expert on what is prehistoric anywhere in the country. So I have to review my thoughts in this matter. We'll consider it before the vote comes up.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS – 16

NAYS – 25

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

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 6 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, under section 6 (2) it states that right of entry doesn't apply to certain kinds of land – for example, an orchard. Now I just want to ask the minister whether you could, for example, witness-post an orchard without actually entering it, as you might do with a lake bottom or so on. How does that apply to this section?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: To the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who is not familiar with mineral staking, the answer is no.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, is that a misprint? Is it "prospector"?

[ Page 5053 ]

Mr. Chairman: It's "prospect or...."

Mr. Gibson: No – it's "prospect or...."

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, first of all, we'd like to say that we're on record as being against mining in parks.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Against mining – period.

Mr. Lea: But if there is going to be mining in parks, then we feel there should be certain precautions taken. For instance, why should there not be a public hearing before there's any mining in parks? Why should there not be a detailed statement of the impact on that park prior to it being allowed? Why shouldn't there be a security deposit by the mining company that's going to do the mining that they will, when they're finished, return that park to the pristine state that they found it in?

Mr. Lauk: A reclamation deposit.

Mr. Lea: A reclamation deposit – that's right.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Put a mountain back.

Mr. Lea: Not "put a mountain back." I think the minister's being facetious when he says: "Put a mountain back." We're against mining in parks, but if that government is going to allow mining in parks there should be certain precautions taken. For one thing, the people of this province should have the right to go to a public hearing to make their point of view known.

You know, it's very strange that the same government who, when they were in opposition, were so fond of talking about giving the public access when they were talking about the Land Commission Act, the right of appeal, the chance to discuss their point of view in public as to whether there should be mining allowed in that park.... The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) – is he not going to speak on this section and give us his point of view? Doesn't he have anything to say about mining in the parks and what should be done? Why hasn't the Minister of Recreation and Conservation insisted that there be public hearings? Why hasn't he insisted that there be a security deposit so that the people who mar that park in any way...? As much as possible, that park should be brought back to its original state of nature. I would like to hear not only the Minister of Mines' point of view on this, but the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's.

It seems to me that if these sorts of precautions aren't made, there is no possible way that we can support this section whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we will be voting against this section unless there are certain precautions taken by the government.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: In reply to the member for Prince Rupert, I think everyone in British Columbia recognizes that the NDP is against mining – period – be it in parks or anywhere else in British Columbia. They've demonstrated that very clearly by their activities while in government for three and a third years in British Columbia. The section that he's referring to, section 7, says that any mining activity that will take place will be under the recommendations of the ministry that is in charge of parks in British Columbia. I want to say that when that takes place there will be conditions established by that particular ministry and not by the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Mr. Lea: I don't think that's quite good enough. For the minister to try and say that the NDP is against mining, period, as his excuse for not taking precautions with our parks is absolutely giving up all sense of duty to his job and to the portfolio he holds. And for him to say that it's going to be all right if there's a bureaucratic recommendation out of the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation is not good enough either. He's just trying to muddy the water; that's all he's trying to do.

As a matter of fact, when that minister was on this side of the House in opposition he said there were too many parks anyway.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Nonsense.

Mr. Lea. Now that he is in a position to wipe a few out, that's probably what he'll do. He doesn't like parks – it's on record.

Mr. Barber: He said it last year.

Mr. Lea: And for that reason I would like to see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) .... It's very worthwhile worrying about heritage buildings, but he better start getting out of the city and see what's going on, see what other things come under his jurisdiction as the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He'll find the parks do. When he finds that parks do, he'd better start talking about section 7 of this bill.

There's no point going on with this because I can see that the minister is intent on doing exactly what he and that government want to do. It's "let mining companies do whatever they want." We're all for mining, but they don't do everything they want, nor should they. Even the mining companies know that.

[ Page 5054 ]

But when they get patsies, why not?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: I've never witnessed such a vicious attack against the integrity of officials of the parks branch – a government department – as I witnessed here tonight by the member for Prince Rupert. He's suggesting that policy for any development that might take place in parks.... This says specifically that the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources has no responsibility as far as any development of parks is concerned.

But the member for Prince Rupert suggests that he has no faith in anyone. That's what he has clearly spelled out. I'd like to ask the member for Prince Rupert... If there was an ore body, a Crown-granted mineral claim – and I don't believe there are any – in Hamber provincial park, for instance, he suggests there should be a-public hearing. Where does he suggest the public hearing take place? There are no people living within Class A provincial parks. Where does he suggest the public hearing should take place for any possible development that might take place in Hamber? In Vancouver, Prince George, Prince Rupert or Revelstoke?

Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, have you ever heard anything so silly? He's saying that because people don't live within the parks, people in this province, the citizens of this province, aren't interested in those parks. Just because he isn't doesn't mean that some of us aren't. The minister is on record as not liking parks.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Twist, twist, twist.

Mr. Lea: The minister is on record as not liking parks, and there's no twisting that. They're his words.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You'd twist anything. You'd even try to twist a pretzel.

Mr. Lea: I'd like to twist a few necks, so that we could have within section 7 some safety for the people of this province to be sure that the parks, that have been set aside by wiser governments, are kept as parks.

Mr. Chairman, I would wager that there probably hasn't even been any consultation between the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources on this section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That's nonsense.

Mr. Lea: Oh, there has been? What date?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Please address the Chair, hon. member.

Mr. Lea: You're back there, eh?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I'm back, hon. member, and would you keep some decorum in this committee.

Mr. Lea: That probably means the end of debate.

Mr. Chairman, when did those meetings take place? Who attended? Were there meetings....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You weren't invited.

Mr. Lea: You're darned right I wasn't invited. Were there meetings between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation? Who attended those meetings? Was section 7 discussed between the ministers? Was it discussed between their staff? When were those meetings and what sections were represented? Who was at those meetings? I don't believe they took place. I think the minister can't remember, because I don't believe they took place.

Are we going to get from that minister, Mr. Chairman, some promise of safeguards so that ordinary people in this province will have some say when the government comes down and says that a certain park is going to be mined in? Is there going to be some sort of appeal? Is there going to be a public hearing so that people can make their points of view known to that appeal? Are the companies that are allowed to go into our parks by this government going to have to put up some sort of security deposit so that they leave the park as close as possible to the state in which they found it? Is the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) going to speak on this one? Is the Premier? This, I think, is a very important matter that we are talking about here. What are we going to do when we have a minister, fellow members, who says he's against parks?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Twist, twist, twist. He would even try to twist a pretzel.

Mr. Lea: Twist a pretzel? No, we vote against the section as amended.

Ms. K.E. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Chairman, you know, I think this section is all news tonight to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I hope he is listening carefully because we all know how the Minister of Mines feels about parks in this province. There's no twisting when we remind the Minister of Mines that he, in fact, spoke against parks last year in this Legislature, saying that there were too many within his riding and that we've got to cut out parks in this province. He said it.

[ Page 5055 ]

Mr. Chairman, tonight the Minister of Mines was scoffing at the remarks made by the member for Prince Rupert, who was trying to suggest that we try to safeguard our parks in this province. He scoffed at him. I think it should be put on the record that the minister says: "What do you want – to put a mountain back?" That's his attitude towards parks in this province. Why not have public hearings? If the people in the Campbell River area had had an opportunity to talk to officials in the Mines ministry before Western Mines went in, they probably would not have had all of the problems they have faced since then with Western Mines within that park. Why not let the people have a say about mining in their parks?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the minister has been unable to convince us that he cares about parks, or that there will be any safeguards or protection of the parks once the mining companies move in. We certainly will vote against this section.

Mr. Lauk: This government has not changed its stripes from the previous Social Credit government which believed that if it was useful as a park, mine it, strip it and clear it away; if it was not useful as a park, declare it a park. This is the kind of mentality of this government. They have actually no commitment to park and to recreation life in this province. I am surprised that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation can sit idly by while this section is passed in committee without even a word.

Ms. Sanford: He hasn't even heard of it before.

Interjections.

Mr. Lauk: He has turned his back on his responsibility as the Minister of Recreation and Conservation in this province. He has turned his back on the proper rehabilitation and the proper preservation...

Mr. Lea: He's turned his back on his own ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: I wouldn't dignify that drivel with comment.

Mr. Lauk: ... of the world environment and the park environment of this great province, which is an attraction to everyone in the province and around the world, and which is being systematically destroyed by the lack of care and husbandry on the part of this administration, as it was with the previous Social Credit administration. The old multi-use concept mouthed currently by some of the more inexperienced cabinet ministers is being reinforced now....

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: Give us an example.

Mr. Lauk: Strathcona Park is an excellent example.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: It's nothing to do with us.

Mr. Lauk: Oh, it's nothing to do with you? You know, Mr. Chairman, why this young Minister of Recreation and Conservation feels that he is in no way responsible for what went on before and he can carry on anew, I don't know.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we are discussing section 7 of the Mineral Act.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman, section 7 is concerned with mining in parks, Section 7 allows the cabinet the ultimate power of granting the right to mine in parks – it's sort of a porkbarrel section again. This government is very comfortable with this kind of ...

An Hon. Member: A "park barrel".

Mr. Lauk: . . . legislation and power in its hands. They created a smokescreen with Crown corporations, and committees, and so on. They said: "Look, we're a government that allows these decisions to be made by the bureaucracy, " But really all the time, by these sneaky little sections, they were ascribing to themselves the power to give away these very lucrative warrants to their friends in private industry to exploit the resources of this province and – which is even more reprehensible in section 7 – to allow the minister or the cabinet the power to destroy our environment in the parks of this great province and to destroy the heritage of the beauty of recreation and enjoyment of wildlife in wilderness areas. That's what is happening with this kind of multi-use concept that is sneaking in under section 7.

I know that the Minister Of Mines, when he was merely the member for Columbia River, in the last parliament, complained bitterly.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Last session, not parliament.

Mr. Lauk: It was in the last session, yes. He complained bitterly about the number of parks in his riding. He said: "There are too many parks. We've got to get rid of these parks." This is part of the fulfillment of his promise to us....

Hon. Mr. Chabot: No, no. I said we don't need any more.

Mr. Lauk: He says: "We don't need any more parks."

[ Page 5056 ]

Hon. Mr. Chabot: In my riding.

Mr. Lauk: We've got too many now. There are too many now. That's what you said, Mr. Minister. I'm not astounded, because he said that in the last session. He said it in the 30th parliament as well, So I'm not surprised about the Minister of Mines bringing in this section.

I am surprised at the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , who sits on his hands and lets a section like this go through without a word. He does what he's told, Mr. Chairman. Most of his responsibilities are in the hands of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) anyway. Why they do not trust the former alderman of Victoria with more responsibility is the concern of the Premier, not of me. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, he's still charged with the responsibility of protecting that valuable resource, the recreation and conservation in this great province, and he hasn’t done so. He's allowed the Minister of Mines and these other veteran politicians – these powerful people of the past – to dredge up these ghosts of the fast buck in our province and to destroy the tremendous parks that were created by the previous administration.

He's going to destroy that, Mr. Chairman, and the only chance for those of us who appreciate the parks and the wilderness of this great province, lie with the minister. Yes, he's a young, inexperienced minister, but a minister nevertheless, charged with that responsibility. He's allowing it to go through because he's been overruled, Mr. Chairman. He's been overruled by the powerful cabinet, that inner circle of people, the only people who have the Premier's ear to destroy these parks. The fast-buck artists, Mr. Chairman, are in power in this capital once again.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I've never witnessed such drivel in all my life in this Legislature. The member for Vancouver Centre seems to get carried away with his pseudo-eloquence, using such language as "reprehensible" and we're "seeking the power to destroy the natural beauty of this province, the parks of British Columbia." We're seeking to destroy the "natural heritage of our people in British Columbia." We're attempting to destroy the opportunity for "people to enjoy wilderness in British Columbia." That's what he's suggesting this section does, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nicolson; Withdraw the section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: The NDP were government for a short period of time, unfortunately, in British Columbia, and they amended the Mineral Act while they were government. I would like to read the section which they introduced as it relates to provincial parks.

"Notwithstanding any Act, agreement, free miner certificate, mineral claim or lease or licence, no person shall explore for or develop minerals within the boundaries of any park created under or pursuant to any provincial Act, unless such exploration and development has been authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the person, corporation, or government that is responsible for the park."

Now I will read section 7, as it presently reads.

"Notwithstanding any Act, agreement, free miner certificate, mineral claim, mining lease or licence, no person shall locate, explore for, mine, or produce minerals in a park created under an Act, unless authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the person, corporation, or government that is responsible for the park."

Mr. Chairman, while they were government, they introduced this section, and I defy anyone in this House to point out any difference between those sections. Mr. Chairman, they are virtually incredible.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister: does his having adopted that portion of NDP mining policy mean he's going to take on the rest too?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: No, no, no.

Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, what we're seeing here is a pattern. What they want to do at their convenience....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

Mr. Lea: What they are trying to do is turn the clock back.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Turn the clock back! Straight rubbish!

Mr. Lea: That's what they are trying to do, because I don't give a good fiddler's darn what the NDP did before or now.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You're incredible.

Mr. Lea: I'm telling you that this caucus is against this section of your bill and we will be voting against it.

[ Page 5057 ]

An Hon. Member: Aw, shucks.

Mr. Lea: That's right. We will. I'll tell you something else, Mr. Chairman. We never had a Minister of Mines who said there were too many parks in this province.

What the Minister of Mines seems to think he has done is discover something that we didn't know. I have both bills in front of me – the Mineral Act that he referred to and the bill he's putting through.

Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't take a very big act on the part of that minister to stand up and say. "Yes, let's put a few safeguards in here." That's what we're talking about. We're talking about a public hearing. We're talking about a statement on the impact on a park, and we're talking about a security deposit to make sure that that park is returned to a pristine state. Now if the minister wants to stand up, as he's been doing for this entire session, and say: "It's all right for us to do it because you did it too." They say that all the time: "It's all right. We can do it because you did it too." I don't care what we did....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor. Please allow him to continue.

Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that I would be doing my duty in this House if I didn't point out the way we in this caucus feel about section 7. We're not talking about what happened to the Mineral Act. We're talking about this section of this bill, and there should be some precautions in it. That's what there should be.

The Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) can sit back there.... Mr. Chairman, that minister has a reputation out in the field among the people in his own department that he doesn't care, that all he cares about is one thing – what's happening in the city.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lea: We're talking about parks.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we are not making a personal attack on another member of this House.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lea: How is that a personal attack? You tell me. How is that a personal attack? If you don't stop interrupting, Mr. Chairman. ... That's all you do as soon as you get in that Chair.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, please take your seat. I must warn you that an attack against the Chair is an attack against this House.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Take your seat, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair's job is to try and keep order. I do the same on both sides of this House. I will not take an attack against the Chair, and I want to say right now....

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, I ask you to withdraw that right now, please.

Mr. Lea: I'm not going to withdraw that until you tell me what kind of a personal attack it was. You tell me.

[ Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: One moment, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Chairman: Please state your point of order.

Mr. Nicolson: Under standing order 9:

"Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal of the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice he shall explain the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

I ask you to do so.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we are keeping order in this House. I did not make an order or a ruling. All I want to have happen in this committee is to have a sensible debate. That is something that's been lacking back and forth. We've been going on and on and on over the last few days in committee with all sorts of points of order and situations of this type. All the Chair is attempting to do is to try to maintain order in this House. I'm very happy to recognize the hon. member for Prince Rupert on section 7 as

[ Page 5058 ]

amended.

Mr. Lea: I would be very happy if you would tell me why you called me to order in saying I attacked that minister personally. I want to know that. I deserve to know that.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, the statement was that the minister was doing certain things out in the field that he was not.... We are not debating this minister. We're debating section 7 as amended in this particular Act. I would be pleased if you would continue on that.

Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I believe that it's absolutely necessary in talking about section 7 to talk about the attitude of the person and the minister who's in charge of parks, because this section has to do with mining in parks. If we have a government with a minister who is paying no attention whatsoever to parks and who's supposed to be.... It's common knowledge in the field in his own department that he pays no attention to it at all but spends all his time with the urban parts of his portfolio. I think we have concern about section 7, especially when the other minister involved is a person who says he doesn't care about parks and we have too many in the first place. That's the difference. In the last government, we had a Minister of Recreation and Conservation who cared about parks – and everybody knew that – and a Minister of Mines who wouldn't allow mining in parks. We have a completely different situation here now.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: This member for Prince Rupert seems to go into a rage once he gets lost and finds himself alone on a point of view. Mr. Chairman, he suggests that the Minister of Mines has something to do with the administration of parks in British Columbia. He seems to be confused in his point no-point in which he stands alone, and in which all members of this House have been laughing at him. Not only members on this side, but members of the NDP have been laughing at him as well on his point no-point. It appears he stands alone; he has no agreement whatsoever.

Maybe I'll have to read those sections to him again, sections introduced by the socialist government that had a great insight into mining and the preservation of parks for the enjoyment of people.

. They introduced the section into the Mineral Act. I will have to read it to him because for some unknown reason the member for Prince Rupert doesn't understand what the NDP introduced for the protection of parks in British Columbia that come under the administration of the Minister of Recreation and conservation, He doesn't understand it. He keeps suggesting all the time that I am in charge of the administration of parks. He seems fearful of that, I have nothing to do with the administration of parks. Mines and Petroleum Resources, in case you don't know, is my administrative responsibility.

Now just to clarify the confusion that exists.... I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he rants and raves, he tends to forget logic, he tends to forget reason, he tends to forget everything. I think it's necessary that I read to him the amendment that was introduced by the NDP when they were government in this province in which they were really concerned about parks in British Columbia, the preservation of our wilderness and the preservation of our heritage so that people in British Columbia can enjoy the wilderness of British Columbia. I think that he supported this kind of amendment. I don't see it in the Journals – I don't have them before me – but I strongly suspect that the member for Prince Rupert supported this amendment which was introduced by the NDP.

Mr.Lea: Did you vote against it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: That's immaterial. The member asks if I voted against it. That's immaterial because there's a parallel section being introduced now. I'll read the section for him. He apparently wasn't listening when I read it before. The parallel amendment they introduced, Mr. Chairman, was:

"Notwithstanding any Act, agreement, free miner certificate, mineral claim, lease or licence, no person shall explore for or develop minerals within the boundaries of any park created under or pursuant to any provincial Act unless such exploration and development has been authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the person, corporation or government that is responsible for the park."

Under the revised Mineral Act which is being introduced now, the section pertaining to provincial parks and possible development reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding any Act, agreement, free miner certificate, mineral claim, mining lease or licence, no person shall locate prospect or explore for, mine or produce minerals in a park created under an Act unless authorized by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the person, corporation or government that is responsible for the park."

I challenge the member for Prince Rupert to point out to me where there is any difference, where there is any further danger to parks that existed under the former socialist government that was kicked out of office in British Columbia on December 11,1975.

Mr. Lea: What the minister doesn't seem to understand is I'm saying there isn't a bit of

[ Page 5059 ]

difference.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Oh, now you're admitting it.

Mr. Lea: No, I'm not; I never said there wasn't. What I'm saying is I don't agree with the section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Why did you vote for it before?

Mr. Lea: Why did you vote against it and you're bringing it in now? Why did you vote against it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Why did you vote for it before?

Mr. Lea: Why did you vote against it?

Mr. Lea: Yes, he did.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: You're guessing now.

Mr. Lea: Oh, no, I'm not guessing. You voted against everything in this bill. What we're talking about tonight is a public hearing before mining is allowed in the park, and that a security deposit of some kind be put up by the people who are going to do the mining in the park?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: There is now, dumbbell.

Mr. Lea: There is no security deposit mentioned here. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Under the Mines Regulation Act.

Mr. Lea: Does that apply here?

Hon. Mr. Chabot; Yes.

Mr. Lea: Then why didn't you say so?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Are you the critic or aren't you? Don't you know the Acts?

Mr. Lea: I don't know every word in every Act, and neither do you. I think you're being a little facetious.

Mr. Nicolson: Which regulation?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Ten and eleven.

Mr. Lea: That's right – he just found out from the person beside him.

There is no reason, because a piece of legislation was brought into this House by the previous government, that the official opposition, or any member of the opposition, or any backbencher can't call for an improvement of any Act. What that minister is saying is that because your government brought in a section to an Act, you people over there can never, forevermore ask that it be changed. That's what he's saying. He's right. I don't trust them with this. If there's no room for a hearing, then I'm not voting for any section. We can see what can happen with a minister who doesn't care about parks, as he has admitted. That's a far cry from a government which is on record as having said we didn't agree with mining in parks. It's a far cry from a government who says they don't care.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, if the minister had listened carefully to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , he would have heard quite clearly that the member said that he was against the section.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Here comes rubber mouth.

Mr. Nicolson: He didn't support the section but he felt that – if we are going to pass this section and accepting it as inevitable that it will pass – it should at least include some provisions for public hearing and for a security deposit. That's what he said, and the minister tried to twist it, as if the fact that such legislation had already existed and had once been voted upon changed it. For him to say that we can't criticize such a provision because we sat once in a government that voted for it, is just as ridiculous to say that he has now no right to propose such a section because he might have once voted against it. Absolutely ridiculous.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) sat through a good part of this debate. He had ample opportunity to get up and make himself clear on an area in which there is growing apprehension. There is nobody speaking out in favour of parks and in defence of parks in this province. This government is going to be not a multiple-use government, but a single-use government. It is going to be mining in parks; there will be no recreational value allowed.

Mr. Chairman, I have seen the effects of mining in parks, the Molly Gibson mine in Kokanee Provincial Park. We saw that because they didn't look after things properly, thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were allowed to seep away and leak into Gibson Lake. Now that the mine is finally out of the park, when people go to hike in, it's over the debris, the scars and the areas that it will never be reclaimed, which were despoiled by that Molly Gibson mine. It was a two-bit little operation, and it didn't produce anything in terms of ore. These are the types of things which are going on. We saw efforts under this

[ Page 5060 ]

section to have mines opened up in certain parks, and to my knowledge I'm only aware of one, which was right on the border of a park, that was ever allowed. I think that this certainly is something that I would like to say I am opposed to. This section probably should end at the word "Act." There should be a period after the word "Act", in other words, a prohibition.

I have hiked in Strathcona Park. I have looked down at Buttle Lake and Western Mines over there. All of these things certainly take away from whatever recreational value there is, and certainly from the aesthetics of an area. That's not to mention the amounts of pollution, such as I mentioned earlier, from the seepage of diesel fuels or tailings and various other products within park boundaries. It was a Social Credit government that allowed the pollution of Buttle Lake. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very real concern and a very high probability that we will see this type of thing reoccur.

So it's very unfortunate this evening that instead of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation standing up and defending himself, he has turned tail and run out of the House, rather than facing this very important opportunity to make his position clear, once and for all. But once again he's made it very clear that his interest is in cities and perhaps in heritage. That's fine, but his reputation is becoming that of one who is not interested in the parks, the recreation and the wildlife resources of his ministry. That is what people are saying.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, just a brief word. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) seems to be concerned about a security deposit for any disruption of land that takes place within the provincial park. I want to tell him that under the Mines Regulation Act, that's already law in British Columbia. For the purpose of ensuring that reclamation takes place, there are already security deposits put in place by any mining development in British Columbia, depending upon the size of the area that might be disrupted.

But I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there seems to be concern about.... The NDP suggests that they're violently opposed to any kind of mineral development within provincial parks. Am I correct in that assumption? He says, yes.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the only order-in-council that's been passed in British Columbia in the last five years that allowed any mineral development within a Class A provincial park, took place under the NDP in 1974, in which they allowed exploration and development to take place in Kokanee Glacier Park.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nicolson: Which part?

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Which part? I don't have the map in front of me. If I remember correctly, the name of the property was Silver Star.

Mr. Nicolson: That order-in-council never went through.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Well, I have a copy of the order-in-council. Unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me because I didn't think you'd be as unnecessarily picky as you have been tonight on this issue. There was an order-in-council passed under the former government in which they allowed development in Kokanee Glacier Park, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure there were no provisions for the security deposit which is the law in British Columbia right now. The NDP, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, are attempting to build a smokescreen on this issue – one which doesn't deserve their attention, and one for which the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , because he's been off-base so severely tonight, shows some great consternation and some unnecessary anger. All the provisions for the protection of the environment are instilled in the Mines Regulation Act, and they're stringent indeed.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I've just had a chance to do some brief research as to when this section was first brought into the statutes of the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately there was no division at committee stage, but it was debated at second reading and a division arose. It included the section which the minister is supporting so strongly tonight. I just wanted to report to the House that among the yeas was Mr. Lea, and among the nays was Mr. Chabot. (Laughter.) It's another fine example of Sam Rayburns's dictum that where you stand depends upon where you sit.

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

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire from the House Leader what the business tomorrow will be?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Public Bills and Orders, and

[ Page 5061 ]

we'll be commencing with second reading of Bill 87, B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Act followed by committee with Bill 52, and followed by possibly 15 other statutes that I'm sure you'll be able to accomplish before the day is out, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 0 1 p.m.

APPENDIX

73 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 73) intituled Mineral Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2 (1) , lines 1 and 3: By adding "prospect or" before "explore" in both places.

Section 2 (2) (i): By deleting section 2 (2) (i) and substituting the following: a company as defined in the Companies Act or the Companies Clauses Act, or a corporation registered as an extra-provincial company under the Companies Act, or".

Section 2 (5) , line 1: By deleting " (4) and substituting " (4) (g)

Section 6 (1) (a) and (b): By adding "prospect and" before "explore" in both paragraphs.

Section 7, line 2: By adding "prospect or" before "explore".

[ Page 5062 ]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

101 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways and Public Works the following questions:

Regarding the "greatly expanded construction program to upgrade and extend the Province's highway system" announced in the 1977 budget as part of the Government's "over-all job creation effort"-

1. Have any specific areas of the Province been designated for such upgrading and extension, and, if so, what are these areas?

2. What criteria were used in selecting these improvement areas?

3. What are the unemployment rates in these areas?

4. What role did creation of jobs play in selection of these improvement areas?

5. How many jobs were created as a result of the upgrading and extension program?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"l. No.

"2. Specific improvement areas were not designated but rather high priority projects of different categories were selected. These include reconstruction or grading projects by contract and day labour, paving, bridge, and crushing projects. The condition of the bridges and pavement, safety factors, and traffic volumes were considered in setting these priorities.

"3. Not applicable.

"4. See No. 2.

"5. Direct employment by this Ministry has resulted in an increase of 1,600 auxiliary employees May 1976 to May 1977. Additionally, owner-operated equipment hired by the Ministry has increased by 1,000 machines of all types. Contractors have also provided employment for an additional 2,000 union members over the same period. Support industries have benefitted accordingly."

1108 Mr. Nicolson asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following questions:

With regard to the movement of over-width vehicles under escort-

1. How many permits were issued in the years 1974,1975, and 1976 for the transportation of over-width trailers and manufactured homes?

2. How many accidents, if any, were incurred by over-width trailers and manufactured homes as recorded by the Motor-vehicle Branch during the years 1974,1975, .and 1976?

3. How many fatalities, if any, occurred during the years 1974,1975, and 1976 in accidents incurred by over-width trailers and manufactured homes while travelling under permit?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"l. Permits for over-width trailers and manufactured homes are not generally separated from other over-size load permits. However, a recent survey of the 1975 permits indicated that about 20,000 were issued in that year for over-width trailers and manufactured homes.

"2 and 3. Motor-vehicle Branch records for 1974,1975, and 1976 do not identify accidents and fatalities in relation to over-width trailers and manufactured homes."