[ Page 415 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Oil Price increase. Mr. Barrett –– 415

Pesticide controls. Mr. Howard –– 416

Free bus passes. Mr. Cocke –– 416

B.C. Government News. Mr. Macdonald –– 417

Denman Island subdivision. Ms. Sanford –– 419

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Mr. Levi –– 419

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 419

Mr. Barrett –– 421

On vote 7.

Mr. Barrett –– 422

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 422

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Committee stage.

On the amendment to section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 422

Mr. Leggatt –– 423

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 423

Mrs. Wallace –– 424

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 425

Mr. Howard –– 426

Mr. Levi — 427

Mr. Barber –– 428

Division  — 429

On the amendment to section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 429

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 429

Mr. Howard –– 429

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 430

Mr. Levi –– 430

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 430

Mr. Howard –– 430

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 430

On the amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 431

On the amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 431

On section 7.

Hon. Mr. Bennett (amendments) –– 431

On the amendment to section 7. (Mr. Levi)

Mr. Levi –– 431

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 431

Mr. Howard –– 431

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 432

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Leggatt)

Mr. Leggatt –– 432

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 433

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Leggatt)

Mr. Leggatt –– 433

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 434

Division –– 434

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Leggatt)

Mr. Leggatt –– 434

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 434

Mr. Barber –– 434

Division –– 434

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Leggatt)

Mr. Leggatt –– 435

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 435

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Stupich)

Mr. Stupich –– 435

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 435

Mr. Leggatt –– 436

Division –– 436

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Howard)

Mr. Howard –– 436

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 437

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Stupich)

Mr. Stupich –– 437

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 437

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Levi)

Mr. Levi –– 437

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 438

On the amendment to section 7 (Mr. Barber)

Mr. Barber –– 438

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 439

Mr. Leggatt –– 439

Division –– 439

On section 8.

Mr. Howard –– 440

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 440

On the amendment to section 11 (Mr. Barber)

Mr. Barber –– 440

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 440

Report and third reading –– 441

Presenting Reports

B.C. Ferry Corporation annual report.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 441

Special Committee on Selection report.

Hon. Mr. Curtis (see appendix) –– 441

B.C. Development Corporation annual report.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 441

Appendix –– 442

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome the former mayor of Duncan for six years, now a resident of Nanaimo and a long-time friend of mine, Jim Quaife.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are three generations of my family in this House today, and I would like you to welcome my wife Marjorie, our daughter-in-law Diane, my son Louis, my grandson Scott — and me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the person I would like to introduce to the House today spans three generations in his own lifetime, but doesn't have any of the family with him. We have a distinguished member of the media with us today, who makes infrequent visits to the capital. Seated among the members of the press is the news director and commentator from radio station CKWX, Vancouver, Mr. Roy Jacques.

HON. MR. MAIR: This seems to be media day. With us today in the members' gallery is Mr. Jack McMahon, general manager of the Nanaimo Times, and its well-known publisher, Mr. Stanley Burke. Would the House make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to introduce to the House today Bill Moncrief, mayor of Cumberland, and Bill Moore, mayor of Courtenay, who on occasion takes the Leader of the Opposition fishing in the Courtenay area. Sometimes the fishing expeditions are successful.

MR. STRACHAN: I would like the House to welcome Mr. Gary Willison, who is an outstanding contributor to education in our province and a representative of the British Columbia School Trustees Association,

MR. REE: We have in the gallery this afternoon a very strong supporter of mine, who was responsible for erecting all the signs and keeping them up during the campaign. Would the House welcome Mr. Ian Naylor?

MR. SMITH: I would like to welcome to the House today a resident of Huntington Beach, California. Mrs. Anne Harrington, who was a resident of Victoria for many years and who is also the aunt of one of our Pages, Gail Abbott.

MR. SEGARTY: In the Speaker's gallery today are Ian and Suzanne Turner. Mr. Turner is well known in the Cranbrook area. He's the clerk of the city of Cranbrook; he's also chief of the small kingdom between the Alberta and British Columbia borders. He's known in the area as Rex Wifukitsak. Would the House welcome them?

Oral Questions

OIL PRICE INCREASE

MR. BARRETT: Is the Premier aware that the oil price increases slated for British Columbia will take the gasoline pump price to approximately $1.15 by the end of this year? Legislation was passed in 1973, through the B.C. Energy Commission, to control gasoline prices in British Columbia. Will the Premier take any action to stop this dramatic gasoline price increase in the province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The national energy policy of the federal government is to gradually move Canadian petroleum product prices closer to world prices. A number of staged increases have come in to prevent the subsidies of the producing provinces — that is, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. With the price of their energy they subsidize the rest of the country. The producing provinces have more to gain than to lose in moving towards this price level.

As you know, the First Ministers last year agreed to hold off the proposed January 1 increase as part of an agreement to contain prices. It was then agreed to by Alberta, Saskatchewan and the government of Canada, which can impose this unilaterally, to continue with the gradual price rise. No interference with this is planned by British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier says that the federal government can impose prices unilaterally, and because of this there is no interference. Is it not true that British Columbia has the power to interfere in this "unilateral" decision by the federal government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the one way we could hold the price would be to subsidize the prices, but we're not planning to do that.

MR. BARRETT: On April 13, 1976, the former Minister of Energy, the member for North Vancouver (Mr. Davis), said: "The fact that the federal government has permitted an increase in gasoline prices doesn't necessarily require that the provincial government authorize a similar increase." There was a federal supreme court decision in this regard back in 1940. The Premier has indicated he does not intend to interfere with this price rise. In the future, if there are dramatic increases in gasoline prices. will there be intervention by the government of British Columbia to stop a dramatic continuation of increases? You've said no to this one increase. What about the future?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The province would always be prepared to prevent unwarranted increases, but not as part of a national economic strategy, and not in those areas where the only alternative would be government subsidy.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on what criteria has the Premier made the decision not to interfere with this increase that's scheduled for the fall'?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The decision was taken at the last First Ministers' Conference, unanimously with the other First Ministers, on the information available, and that was that the producing provinces were losing substantial amounts of money. In fact, you wouldn't have to give away the constitutional rights to your gas and oil if you allowed it not to get full value for it and subsidized the other provinces. This is a movement toward world prices which, in part, service our country.

[ Page 416 ]

Right now the western provinces are subsidizing to a large degree the rest of Canada's fuel prices. My alternative to this is not to have any one set of people, with their resource, subsidizing another. That would be like asking us to subsidize the rest of Canada on their lumber prices, and I'm not prepared to do that. The full value for that resource comes to the people of British Columbia. Anyone who argued differently would be arguing for that sort of program; that's not practical.

PESTICIDE CONTROLS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment when he will be able to announce the effective date of the regulations which, I understand, are currently being drafted to exempt from the provisions of the Pesticide Control Act those who contract to spray pesticide such as Tordon and 2.4-D on private land. Can the minister say when he'll be in a position to announce the effective date of those regulations?

HON. MR. MAIR: It's very difficult to answer something in the future. It has not been discussed by the government, so I can't even tell you when that will happen, much less when any regulations may or may not be passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister should be aware that the question was really not an answer, but I must recognize him when he stands.

MR. HOWARD: Would the House be correct in understanding that the minister and the government have no intention of putting into effect such regulations?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that that question is clearly out of order. But if I told the member that there is a case before the courts on the very point that he is talking about now, the result of which we are awaiting before we suggest to the government any course of action, perhaps that would help him with the quandary he finds himself in.

MR. HOWARD: Is it not correct that the counsel representing the government plans to agree to an extension in that case before the courts in order that the regulations may be drafted?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I don't know.

FREE BUS PASSES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Human Resources. Prior to the last election the minister sent out a letter to a number of people which said: "Enclosed is your bus-pass application form." Then she went on to tell people that the bus-pass program sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources provides pass holders with free transportation on metropolitan buses in Vancouver and Victoria.

The person writing to me indicates that he is not very happy about that and encloses a cancelled cheque for $5, which was cancelled by the Ministry of Finance, in payment for this bus transportation. Why would the minister talk about free transportation and why, particularly, just before an election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you for bringing this question to the House. I would like to respond by telling the member that I have frequent communications with people within my ministry, and not just before or during an election campaign. That is not the first of such letters that have gone out to recipients.

I also would like to say that a member of our ministry made an unfortunate error. The error was caught and only a few hundred of those letters with that erroneous information were sent out. We apologize to those who drew it to our attention and we are sorry that that happened. Human errors happen in Human Resources, and unfortunately the erroneous information was sent out. I don't think the letter created very much difficulty. It was explained to those who drew it to our attention very early. There were just a very few that went out before the ministry realized the error of their ways and corrected it.

MR. COCKE: "Nothing is freer than free, my friend!" But, Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to state that all this lucky recipient of the letter must do is write back and they can get a "Good Times '79" traveller's cheque book. "Please feel free to write me at the parliament buildings." The minister cannot let go of that old portfolio. Mr. Speaker, is she ambitious and does she want to get back to travel industry?

MR. SPEAKER: Really, the question is not in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to give an answer to the out-of-order question. May I just say to all of those recipients of either income assistance or GAIN that we feel that all of the services of government that are provided, either by virtue of a service or by the travel industry minister, or by the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Economic Development or whatever.... Anything that should be available and could be available should be mentioned to them, and that was put in among other things that were available in the way of services. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I had a very good response from that letter. I had very many senior citizens write, and many today are travelling and taking advantage of that program throughout the province.

MR. COCKE: Why would the minister have signed the letter when it was erroneous?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's self-explanatory.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary on the letter and the reply the minister gave regarding the handing out of the "Good Times" booklet, which she said is available throughout the different ministries, I wonder if she could then explain why the "Good Times" booklets were available only to Social Credit candidates to hand out during the election period?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As you know, government issues and government material are available to all members of this House and all members of the public. As for the distribution of same, that question should be properly asked of the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development.

[ Page 417 ]

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD: This question is to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question about the B.C. Government News and sent him a little note asking that it be made available for the Premier's estimates yesterday. At 11:03 last night the minister characterized it as an arrogant demand on my part. Is it the attitude of his ministry that requests of elected members for public information constitute arrogant demands?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm a quiet man, though the opposition find that funny. I'm a quiet man, and I have never spoken to any member of this House in the way the member for Vancouver East spoke to me last night. I will not respond to arrogant demands or to intimidation in this House or in this corridor with respect to answering a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Matters pertaining to activities outside of this chamber are not necessarily of interest to the chamber.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the minister if he will file the question and leave aside all this business. You say the answer's readily available.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the information in the House today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member for Vancouver East that we can ask questions in this chamber. We can even anticipate answers, but we cannot demand answers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has quite clearly on two occasions this afternoon accused me of a cover-up. I ask him to withdraw that most irresponsible accusation.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the second member for Vancouver East please withdraw.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Has the second member for Vancouver East no regard for the standing orders of this chamber? Order, please! There has been a clear request for withdrawal of the word "coverup," which has been found to be offensive. I ask, in the sense of good humour which normally occupies this chamber, that the member please withdraw the word "coverup. "

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, what words can I use to describe a minister who has information readily available and has so stated, and refuses to give it to an elected member?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is another side to the coin, and that is the public's right to know, and that should be respected in this chamber also. I think the word "suppression" or — "coverup" are perfectly in order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You cannot intimidate any member of this House, and that's what you are doing. You should know better.

AN HON. MEMBER: He went berserk.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll say he did.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I please read for you from standing order 19:

"Whenever any member shall have been named by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed by such member in the House, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, 'That such member be suspended from the service of the House'; and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the Whole House, the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House; and Mr. Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself."

Hon. members, I have been watching the decorum of our House, a House of which we are all proud, and I have seen, with some dismay, a degradation of the same. I recommend to all members that we should perhaps reflect for a few moments on our reasons for being here and on the standing orders that have been put in place because of the experiences of this House in the past. We should commit ourselves to the standing orders which alone can guarantee that business can be conducted in an orderly fashion.

I recommend these to you, hon. Members, and trust that I will have your commitment.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question has not been resolved. There was an offensive remark made related, as I recall, to "coverup," and I ask the hon. second member for Vancouver East to please withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, on page 111 of Beauchesne it says that since 1958 it has been ruled parliamentary to use certain expressions. and "coverup" is mentioned there in reference to the debates of the House of

[ Page 418 ]

Commons, November 16, 1977, page 941. In order that we might keep good temper in this House, Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps just suggest some reference to those debates. I don't pretend to know exactly what was said by the Speaker of the House at that time, but this could perhaps be referred to before proceeding.

MR. SPEAKER: I refer the hon. member to page 105 to what we might call a headline to those very words. It seems to me that subsection 2 says: "Since 1958 it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions." I thank the hon. member for drawing that to my attention.

MR. NICOLSON: On page 110 of the fifth edition, under subsection 3, it says: "Since 1958 it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions: "arrogant, ashamed, aspersions, black sheep, blackmail, change, clownery, coverup...." It's another alphabetical listing. It just happened I was passing the time of day in reading this a couple of days ago — just a sheer stroke of luck and inspiration.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member. The practice of this House has been, regardless of what happens in other Houses — as some new members have learned since arriving here — that the practice is established by the precedents of this House itself. Since I have observed the proceedings, whenever a remark which has been found to be offensive has been asked to be withdrawn, the request has usually been complied with. I would ask the hon. member, now that the heat of the debate is over, to please withdraw the phrase.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps you could also rule on the accusation the minister made against me, which doesn't really bother me at all, that I was guilty of intimidation and an arrogant demand — which he just said — in asking for public information which he said was readily available. What about that? Is that worse than my saying he is suppressing the information deliberately?

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that perhaps if the phrase was found offensive on both sides of the House, we could clear up the matter by withdrawal on both sides, and we could then proceed with the business. May I ask the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw?

MR. MACDONALD: I want to know what the answer is on the first one. If he's going to withdraw, I will; but not otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, we're having a fairly good time, but there's a very essential principle involved here and that's the right to have public information put on the table and not deliberately delayed. While we're all in a good humour about it, I'll stand by that principle. Now if the minister is ready to withdraw "it's intimidation and an arrogant demand to ask for it," I might reconsider my position; but otherwise no.

MR. SPEAKER: The member refuses to withdraw?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no alternative but to order the second member for Vancouver East to withdraw the phrase "coverup." Does the member withdraw?

The member does not withdraw.

I ask the member the second time: will he withdraw?

MR. MACDONALD: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member does not withdraw.

I ask the member a third time: will he withdraw the phrase "coverup"?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I can't do that. I think that's what's happened. I have to say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Under standing order 19 the Chair would entertain the motion that such member be suspended from the service of the House. Is there such a motion?

HON. MR GARDOM: I move that Mr. Macdonald, the second member for Vancouver East, be suspended from the service of the House for one sitting day.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 21

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, since this is a procedure that is not really common to the House, and it is the first time that I have had to carry through this procedure since my coming to the Chair, I would just like all members to know that it is appropriate. As a matter of fact, Beauchesne provides that it is in order that the member under question should withdraw from the room, and I'm delighted to see that the hon. member did follow suit.

I am advised that before we went into this exercise the time for question period had expired. There was one further matter that I must care for and that was....

[ Page 419 ]

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this relates to the information that you have received with respect to the end of question period. I was on my feet seeking the floor well before the point of order took place, and had I been recognized at that time I would have been allowed to proceed with my question before the Clerk would have rung the bell to indicate the end of question period. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, if, in view of that, we could have an extension of question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for the one question?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered, immediately following the statement which you interrupted, hon. member.

We were asking for a withdrawal from both sides of the House. The second part I must carry through with, and I ask the hon. Provincial Secretary to please withdraw the offensive phrases which he used.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be appropriate for me to withdraw, but to make it clear, sir, that intimidation in the corridor is not acceptable as far as I am concerned.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that is not an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it was an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't an unequivocal withdrawal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the hon. member if it was an unequivocal withdrawal.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DENMAN ISLAND SUBDIVISION

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing question period to extend beyond the point of order that we were dealing with.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and Highways. Have the minister or any of his senior officials met with Peter Rainsford or any of his representatives concerning the Seaview Land Estates subdivision on Denman Island?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly haven't, to my knowledge, and I don't know whether my senior people have or not. I'll have to take that part of the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, a new question then. I'm wondering if the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A clarification: if the question was taken on notice we can't take a supplementary, and I think leave was granted for only one question. Shall leave be granted for this extra question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: I hear several noes, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'll save it till Tuesday.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to correct the statement which I made last night during the course of my speech.

Leave granted.

MR. KING: I would like to thank the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) for drawing it to my attention, along with a number of other people. In giving statistics from the Ministry of Labour review I referred to the work force of the year 1973 as being 1,200,000; the figure should have been 1,020,000. And I referred to the year 1974 as being 1,600,000 when, in fact, it should have been 1,060,000. I would like the House to note that.

Hon. Mr. Mair tabled the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1979.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
(continued)

On vote 6: Premier's office, $245,047 — continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the first member, the members have had several dissertations from the committee in the last day of debates, but I would refer to a standing order which does stick to relevance. I would hope, perhaps, as this particular estimate has taken some time, that we could stick to things of relevancy and avoid the poetry. Please continue.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just so you have an idea what I'm going to be doing, I just want to cover three items: the issue of freedom of information — I'd like to get some answers from the Premier on that; the question of investment; and a general question on the proceedings that took place during the election in respect to advertising.

I want to just say to the Premier that his apparent refusal to make available the Schroeder report is not in keeping with the spirit of his intent to do something about freedom of information.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've got an answer on the Schroeder report.

MR. LEVI: Okay. Do you want to give the answer now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, regarding the questions on the Schroeder report, this report examined in some detail the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the investment community in British Columbia. The report,

[ Page 420 ]

having been received by the ministry, is being utilized by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to assist government in modifying, if necessary, the procedures involving the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The Schroeder report is not an end unto itself but is a research tool and will be released after it has been studied by the ministry and recommendations have been brought to cabinet. The government may introduce either regulations or legislation, depending on the considerations of the report. It will be made public after that time.

MR. LEVI: I thank the Premier for the response. I'd just like to say that last year, during the debate on his estimates, he was asked a question by the former member for North Vancouver–Capilano about the availability of information — in fact, the topic of freedom of information. The Premier did say on May 12 — it's in Hansard, page 340 — that "some areas on freedom of information have been a direction in which the government is moving." At that time he was making reference to the quarterly reports. Later on he said: "A number of other areas are being looked at. What we do need is freedom of information between governments." He was then going on to talk about the problem of getting information from the federal government.

However, we've had some difficulty in terms of getting information. Now in respect to the Premier's statement about the Schroeder report, I'd like to just quote from a statement that was made by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) on May 31, 1978. I had asked him at that time about the Schroeder report, which was a capital market study, and he said:

I'm not at liberty to go into great detail on the matter, but let me just give you this answer. They've given us a number of drafts from time to time as to what they've been doing and the conclusions they've reached. In so doing, in the eyes of the Ministry of Economic Development and our ministry, they have identified new problems. We have asked them to go into these problems and to identify them and to report upon them before they give the final report. That is the reason that it's going to take a little time, longer than we anticipated. It's an extremely detailed report. I think it's a comprehensive report that certainly matches our original hopes. If it doesn't exceed them. So I think, all in all, we are better served in the government, in the province and in this Legislature to give a little more time to go into the matter in great detail than to ask them to come in with an interim report at this time.

Now this was over a year ago. The reason I raise the matter of the Schroeder report is because the Schroeder report did not just deal with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. At that time there was a desire by the government and apparently by the investment community in British Columbia to look at all of the facets of investment in the province. I'm aware that there was some concern expressed about the Vancouver Stock Exchange because shortly after, I think, almost on the same day that there was a CBC show called "Connections" which dealt with some aspects of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the minister announced that there would be an inquiry. The minister, of course, had prior knowledge because he'd evidently seen a screening of the show. Okay, that's on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and we've heard from the Vancouver Stock Exchange that they have been tightening up their procedures. That's okay; they presumably have been.

But as for the other aspects of the report, it would seem to me that it would be in the interest of the government to make those available. That is the whole question of the investment climate and the investment field in the province. That's basically what I've been asking for in respect to the releasing of the report. The report is a costly one; it cost at least $125,000. I was extremely sceptical when we were told last year that the government needed time to took at it. All sorts of things went through my mind as to whether they wanted to censor it, or whether they worried about what information was in there. Quite obviously there is some information in there about the investment climate, which is a bit of a problem, perhaps, to the government, and they haven't released it. However, it would seem from the statement made by the Premier that we're going to wait quite a long time. If it's a question of reflecting what goes on on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, we're probably going to be looking at possibly some amendments to their Act, and also some amendments to the Securities Act. That's not likely to take place this year. So it may very well be that we won't get access to that report.

That, Mr. Premier, is not in the spirit of the feeling of freedom of information which you expressed last year, that we want to move towards freedom of information. While I don't want to reflect on a decision that was made in the House just previously, again there was a discussion about the obtaining of information.

Now I just want to go to the other side of the question of freedom of information, and this really relates to the kind of thing that took place in the election. In order to illustrate for the Premier the kind of mixed problems that he and his party seem to have, I want to just point out this particular advertisement that appeared on May 9 in the Victoria Times and numerous papers around the province in which it said: "The NDP doesn't want you to vote in the May 10 election. " It's put out by the committee to re-elect sensible government. The information talks about why the NDP doesn't want us to vote.

Part of the problem they don't mention in here is the problem that I hope we're going to deal with sometime this session, and that's the problem of the mess that was made during the election in terms of the enumeration. The Premier must be held responsible for the mess because he is the individual that makes the decision about when the election will be called, and it's his responsibility as the First Minister of the Crown to see that the election machinery is in good order. Having been in government well over three years, one would have thought that he would have put it in good order. I was particularly annoyed myself in respect to the riding that I run in, a riding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, just in keeping with our standing orders, perhaps that line of debate would be better addressed to the estimates of the Provincial Secretary, under whose particular purview this matter comes. Admittedly, all ministers are responsible to the First Minister, but the particular matter is perhaps addressed best under the estimates of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEVI: I'm not dealing with the mechanics of enumeration, Mr. Speaker. I'm dealing with the function of the Premier to direct his ministers to do particular work, particularly with respect to the Elections Act. After all, he is the one that calls an election. One presumes that he has to say to the person in charge of that Act: "Is everything ready? Are people going to have access to the polls? Is the

[ Page 421 ]

democratic process going to be fully accomplished by everybody in the province?" In other words, is everything in order?

After all, we did hear from the Premier in 1976 that we were going to get a revision of the Provincial Elections Act, we were going to get an election expenses Act. We didn't get any of this. But we must have a concern about this. After all, he's the First Minister of the Crown. He has to be able to direct his ministers in this respect. That's mainly what I'm saying. That's his function. He is the one that is privy to the decision to be made as to whether to go to an election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I were to accept that line of argument, then I would accept the fact that the Premier can answer questions for every minister on every subject that all ministers are responsible for.

Within the realm of the Premier's personal responsibilities, it's well in order. I know you appreciate the role and the position of the Chairman, so you will conduct yourself accordingly.

MR. LEVI: I don't want to get into a debate with the Chairman. He's right, he wants to keep order. The main thing is that the only person in this House who is responsible for calling elections is the Premier, and we're dealing with his estimates. That's really what I wanted to say.

Now I want to talk about one other thing, the Premier's new role as a stock touter. He's got into the habit of going to the press and talking about the value of various corporations and whether we should have different kinds of investment in the province. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that at the time of the statement regarding the issue of free shares there had to be an order-in-council passed — section 37 of the Securities Act — in order that the Premier wouldn't be liable as someone who was touting stock. He did that in respect to the BCRIC shares.

The second time he went into the touting business was in respect to a B.C. Telephone and General Electric Telephone inter-corporate share transfer that was going to take place. He insinuated himself into that. He also insinuated himself earlier in the year into the question of MacMillan Bloedel and the CPI. One of the issues that he raised was that he had some concern about the power of CPI in respect to MacMillan Bloedel.

According to the Financial Post, in a recent issue of their regular series on the largest 500 corporations in Canada, the fourteenth largest corporation is MacMillan Bloedel. The Post listed two major shareholders. One is in the United States with 9 percent, and the other is Canadian Pacific Investments with 13 percent. I don't know whether the Premier was aware that 9 percent of the shares of MacMillan Bloedel are held in the United States. That's a fairly significant number of shares. They are characterized in this report as major shareholders.

But that has been a process that the Premier has gotten into. During the previous government, he was always worried about the government getting involved in the private sector. He's not only been getting involved in the private sector, but he's been directing the private sector as to what he would like to see happen within the private sector. There is concern in boards around this country whether it is the role of a Premier to start insinuating himself into the private sector. He says that he represents the free enterprise system, and he wants to be able to see if free and enterprising, and not see any government interference.

We've had three cases where that Premier has insinuated himself into the private sector. He has created some concern, particularly with people who were thinking about investing in this province and then realized that their investment might be questioned by the Premier. He used the theme: "B.C. is not for sale." Of course, that's "B.C. is not for sale to some people, but B.C. is for sale to other people.'' It depends on whether it happens to be Panco or Weyerhauser or what suits his purpose best. He's made a practice in the last seven or eight months of insinuating himself into the private sector and has had some adverse effect on the whole question of investments.

These things are inconsistent with statements made earlier by the Premier in terms of his role, the free enterprise system of which he is the spokesman and in terms of the business of freedom and freedom of information.

He's been a great talker on that. He used to say when he was in opposition: "We have to get all the information we can get." I don't recall that he was able to name one report that he did not get on request from the government. But for over a year we've been trying to get a report which is essential to the investment climate. It's essential that we know about it. We've had no other definitive report on investment in this province. We heard that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) had done some studies, which apparently are non-existent, in respect to the effects of succession duties, and if you remove them how effective they would be in terms of promoting investment. We've had none of that.

Is the Premier going to be consistent in his sharing of information, the open government, and in moving towards the kind of legislation that he has talked about over the past three years? He's talked about conflict of interest legislation, he's made comments about freedom of information, he's made comments about the Provincial Elections Act, and yet we have none of this available. What he wants to share with the province is completely inconsistent.

The investment question will presumably continue to be a key question in the debates in this House when we get to economic development. We have completed the finance area. We need to be armed with more up-to-date information. Presumably that information is available in the Schroeder report. I would say to the Premier that if it is important to leave aside that part of the report that relates to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, then well and good leave it aside. Surely there must be other information available in terms of a release of part of that report. I doubt very much if that report is in one piece; perhaps it's in several pieces.

That would be serving a useful purpose in making the debate in this House far more informative in terms of the investment climate. We're not asking for what goes on in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. We can leave that to the legislation. But if parts of that report can be made available to assist this House, to assist the investment people, then that should be done. That should not in any way infringe on anybody's business independence in terms of what he said in that.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier if he also checked on the credit union report on the

[ Page 422 ]

financial institutions Act, and if that central credit union report is available.

Would the Premier check, and sometime let us know, rather than hold up his vote? On the same basis as the Schroeder thing, would you check and let us know which minister has it? That's all I want to know at this point. Thank you for the undertaking.

The other thing I want to say in conclusion of the Premier's estimates is that I am pleased to see, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister has changed his position on Petro-Canada and has now said that a move to sell Petro-Canada will not be a high priority. That's today, and that is good news for Canadian industry and Canadian manufacturing.

There is the concern, however, of the dramatically rising cost of energy in the marketplace for Canadians. The Premier has indicated that the increase scheduled for the price of gasoline will not be stopped. I asked the Premier to consider if the present increase cannot be stopped, to consider his government looking at the dramatic impact of such increases, especially of transportation for working people outside metropolitan areas who have to use their cars to travel to work. It is an added cost for those in rural areas, who don't have the benefit of publicly subsidized transit. I'm not suggesting a form of subsidization, but the fact is that public transit is subsidized for lower mainland or urban users.

I think we canvassed the Premier's estimates thoroughly. I welcome the undertaking to identify who has the B.C. Central Credit Union report.

MR. BARBER: If I may, I would like to apologize for a remark I made last night. I referred to a couple of individuals who are not members of this House. One is an order-in-council appointee, the other is in private employment. My remarks were not fair. They were not called for. I apologize for them now.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: executive council, $535,833.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Premier if he would give consideration to the tradition in this province of having opposition members attend as observers at federal-provincial conferences, under this executive council vote, because it is usually the cabinet ministers who go back. During our administration we encouraged such participation. Every other province, I understand, does. If not, fine. But I think it would be useful for British Columbia. We did it when we were in government, and I would hope the Premier would do the same.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was not initiated by the government. I think the energy conference of 1974 was the first conference in which the government of Canada allowed delegations to be expanded to include observers. They have not been consistent. Not every First Ministers' Conference is held in the same manner, but in those where it is expanded, it may be possible to include observers. I know of one conference where it was allowed that we missed merely through oversight. It's not our intention to prevent people going to watch. They're welcome. But the opening of the conference is a conference decision. It hasn't been consistent.

Vote 7 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES INVESTMENT
CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On the amendment to section 2.

MR. BARBER: For whatever value it may have, I wonder if I might repeat the amendment now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MR. BARBER: The government proposes to repeal altogether section 4 of the 1977 bill. We propose to add to the language contained in Bill 12 the following words, by adding after the word "repealed"; "and the following substituted: 'on any offering of shares of the company to the public at large orders shall only be received from residents of the province'." That amendment was ruled in order. I have every confidence that the government will support it.

Our amendment, which is in order, will guarantee that British Columbia is not for sale. It will guarantee that shares in the resources corporation may be sold only to residents of British Columbia. It will guarantee that the Premier meant what he said when he told us months ago that the assets, the resources, the general inheritance of the province of British Columbia will not be abandoned to other than citizens of the province of British Columbia. The amendment, which is in order, would commit the province of British Columbia to restrict sales of shares in the resources corporation to British Columbians only. I would remind the Premier — I'm sure it's not necessary, but let me do it anyway — that section 4 in the 1977 bill, until amended, read: "On any offering of the shares of the company to the public at large, preference shall be given to orders received from residents of the province."

The Premier knows that we opposed the 1977 legislation. We opposed it on a number of grounds. However, it's only fair to point out that there were some sections in the 1977 Act that were good; section 4 was one of them. Section 4 would guarantee and did guarantee for two years, in law if not in practice, that residents of British Columbia would be given first choice in the share offerings of the resources corporation. What we discover is that in this

[ Page 423 ]

unfortunate government amendment they propose to repeal altogether that guarantee, that protection, that means of ensuring that British Columbians come first. Even more unfortunately, they don't add to it some better protection, some better device, some better means of guaranteeing that British Columbians come first. They repealed it totally and replaced it with nothing. It’s a big mistake.

What it means is that anyone anywhere in the country can purchase and eventually control together with others sufficient shares in the resources corporation, and we may end up, lo and behold, having to fight off another CPI takeover of another British Columbia corporation. We wouldn't want that to happen. Those were strenuous days for the Premier and for us in the opposition. We wouldn't want to see that happen to the resources corporation, as the Premier tells us it almost happened to MacMillan Bloedel.

When the Premier gets up, as I see him doing — he's drinking water; that's the usual signal he's going to rise — he will tell us that, because of the $6-a-head share offering that was concluded on June 15, and because of the free shares as well, every possible means of guaranteeing preferential treatment for British Columbians has already been obtained and exercised. If that's what the Premier is going to say — one can anticipate he might — let me save him the trouble of making the argument by telling him on behalf of the official opposition that that protection is simply not adequate.

Reasonably enough, the law allows that the board of directors of the resources corporation may in the future go to the public with other share offerings. By and by, the number of shares obtained through those subsequent future offerings may well be enough to guarantee that non-British Columbians hold the majority of shares in the Resources Investment Corporation.

Accordingly, the protection the Premier may feel is no longer required in law, because it was obtained in the practice up until June 15, is protection that we don't think is worth very much. We're not writing a law here today for next week. We're writing it for next year. and perhaps ten years from now, if it stands unamended. The protection the Premier may genuinely feel has been exercised and obtained, as of June 15, we would simply argue should be enshrined in law for a long time to come. As we announced some time ago, the official opposition is proposing, today and in the future, a series of amendments which we think are consistent with the basic principle of "British Columbia Ain't For Sale." I refer to the author of the remarks, and I ask the author to accept our amendment.

They enhance what you yourself have already said is government policy. They strengthen what you have already said is a government object. They add to the weight and the burden of an argument that you yourself have made, through you, Mr. Chairman, that British Columbia is not for sale. Our amendment provides that, on any offering of shares of the company to the public, at-large orders shall be received only from residents of the province. If ever there were an amendment that guaranteed that British Columbians come first, this is the amendment. If ever there were an opportunity for opposition and government together to guarantee that British Columbians come first, this is the opportunity. We ask the Premier to support the amendment, to take the opportunity and join with us in guaranteeing that these inherited assets that belong to all British Columbians shall continue to belong exclusively to them, so long as this amendment prevails and this law holds. Others of my colleagues will speak on the matter. For the moment I would appreciate comments of the Premier on the same question.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to add just a bit to what my colleague said about this proposed amendment. One of the reasons we feel this is one of the most significant and important amendments that we're proposing is the concern of a great many people in British Columbia that ultimately these shares will fall into the hands of foreign owners.

The Premier is looking at me quizzically, and I want him to try to follow this logic — it's not that tough to follow. We had a bill originally passed which provided for a clear B.C. preference in respect to this particular corporation and its shares. The second bill takes away that B.C. preference and says, in fact. exclusively Canadian. The clear reason for that, and I know the Premier will want to get up and explain this to us, was to expand the market — probably to expand the value of those shares, if you examine the law of supply and demand. The risks of foreign ownership are that in the event it isn't successful — if we have some reverses — what will be the policy of that corporation next year? Will they not come before this House and suggest: "We'll have to expand the market even further. We should have these shares on the New York market so that the range of purchasers is increased and therefore the share value is increased, through the normal processes of the marketplace. "

So the reason why this is such an important amendment is that it gives the Premier an opportunity to support what he said about B.C. assets not being for sale. It gives him a chance to put on record right now by simply standing up in this House and saying: "Yes, we accept this reasoned amendment to guarantee to the people of British Columbia that these shares won't be sold anywhere but in British Columbia." It seems to me an easy step for the Premier to take. I'll be interested to hear his reasoning for wishing to expand the market outside of British Columbia. But I suspect behind it is the same reasoning one would use to expand it beyond Canada as well.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the government will not accept the amendment for a number of reasons, the main one being that when this section was put in the initial bill, the drafters of the bill at that time anticipated a small offering in which British Columbians would get first purchase.

The members may have some knowledge of how the Alberta Energy Corporation floated such a share. The share was never to be un-Canadian; it was to give their own people a first opportunity, and when the Alberta Energy Corporation offering was made, Albertans had a preference for a period of time. After that time, if the share offering wasn't sold — and there was a fixed limit — it would be made available to other Canadians. It has the same restrictions concerning continual Canadian ownership as does the Canadian Development Corporation. I believe you will find that, in fact, much of the language in this legislation guaranteeing future Canadian ownership and

[ Page 424 ]

only Canadian ownership is utilizing the best parts and strengthening the best parts of those bills, both of them having the same partial intent. We all have the same intent to guarantee forever that only Canadians can own the shares, and the same restriction on the amount that any person or associated persons or company or associated companies can own. That logically provides the protection as with any law we pass.

Members here can question whether people can try and break the law. I say that when they break the law there are ways of dealing with them. We pass laws that people should wear motorcycle helmets for safety. When someone finds the law is not adequate, the law is strengthened. But you can't guarantee that someone is not going to break the law. There are laws against murder. It doesn't mean that I can tell you that because I passed a law no one is going to go out and murder somebody.

But I can say this: we have here the strongest law, and the only one providing this type of opportunity and this type of protection, because it has gone much further than in those other areas with those other corporations. This has not become a quasi-public corporation, nor is it a quasi-Crown corporation; it is truly a public corporation in the private sector, which carries with it these restrictions for all time.

Now we changed the method of distribution, Mr. Member. We had two offers, one from the government of British Columbia of the free shares, and the other at the same time offering only qualified British Columbians or Canadians an opportunity to purchase into their company. We have had both a distribution and an offering that has not only given preference, but has been exclusive to British Columbia, and it has been enthusiastically subscribed. I think it has gone beyond the expectations of anyone, myself included. It has made the whole of not only the financial community but also the political community reassess the need for individual ownership and the willingness to participate in it that is out there amongst the Canadian people. It's something that only they can express. It gets lost in election issues and lost in debate; but it is significant that when given the opportunity, they answer not with a ballot but with their money, and with their application, and with their participation. That's probably the strongest expression that you're going to see, or that you could see and they've responded.

I say to the members that this company is going to have the broadest participation by shareholders of any corporation in Canada. As of today, with processing of applications still taking place, an estimated 86 percent of those who qualify applied for the free shares. As you know, there is provision for appeal until the end of the year, so it may be that we will have right off the bat a corporation with well over two million shareholders who are British Columbians, two million-plus British Columbians who are Canadians will in effect own the company.

Can anyone take it away from them? No, nobody can take it away from them. Can anyone buy it? Yes, but only if they are willing to sell. My advice to them is — and I know the member supports me in this, because I know he has great confidence in the future of this province and the opportunities that lie there — not to sell. I don't want to see our people offering those shares. I want them to hold them, because I believe that the future of that company can be bound up in the future of this province, not through government direction or government control, but through the opportunities that lie in British Columbia. Obviously no one can take it from them, nor can control be taken outside the country, nor would even ownership go beyond the borders of British Columbia, except by choice of someone being willing to sell — and I don't think many will be willing to sell; I think they look on it as an investment.

But is there something wrong with a few other Canadians wanting to own? If we set up that type of balkanization on a permanent basis — not allowing other Canadians to own — they could do likewise to British Columbians who own elsewhere.

It is not the same as a large company moving in to dominate an area. This legislation would not be aimed at the CPRs; it would be aimed at the little people of the country, the average people — average Canadians. I know it would not be the intent — at least, I hope it would not be the intent — to move against the ordinary, average Canadian. It's one thing to stand up against CPI when it would have an unwarranted position in our forest industry, but it would be another for any member of this Legislature to put in legislative roadblocks before the little guy in Canada. How could I go anywhere and say: "We have legislators who don't want you, as an ordinary Canadian citizen, to have a share in a company which believes if you find a willing seller you may be a willing buyer."? They'd find it very unusual, and they'd wonder what Canadian citizenship offered.

Because of the very volume of the shares, the number of shareholders, the large equity base and because of the tremendous leverage the company now has, they won't need to ever float another equity issue. The problems facing the shareholders and the directors of the corporation will be the very success of the subscription, the utilization of that equity base and the leverage it has to make other acquisitions and develop other projects.

The amendment is rejected by the government as not being necessary. British Columbians already have security, and working against opportunities for average Canadians is hard to defend. It isn't similar to the CPI move; it merely puts in roadblocks before other Canadians who want an opportunity in what can only be a Canadian-owned company. We're not prepared to support that. We have, in effect, guaranteed the British Columbia dominance in ownership. In fact, at this time that's total in British Columbia and, in my view, always will be.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm interested in the Premier's remarks when he indicates that only British Columbians presently have the opportunity to hold shares in BCRIC. That's not entirely true. Certain brokerage firms in this province have encouraged people who indicated that they didn't have funds to buy any other shares to give their proxy to those brokerage firms and the agents of those firms. Under the proxy terms they are able to get that proxy and have purchased shares in BCRIC backed by funds from Alberta and the United States. That has happened already.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Give me the names.

MRS. WALLACE: I can do that later.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you give me examples right now?

MRS. WALLACE: Right now I can't name names.

[ Page 425 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Madam, it's a very serious thing....

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that has been done, Mr. Premier. That has taken place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: By proxy those people are investing, funds from out of this province. That has taken place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has the floor, unless you're rising on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the member.... It's a very serious accusation to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. I must ask the member to take his seat.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're willing to go along with something that's untrue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please continue.

MRS. WALLACE: Rather than weaken this legislation, we should strengthen it, and that's exactly what this amendment does. To remove the clause in this bill which does away with the preference to B.C. residents is a step that weakens the legislation, while this amendment is a step that provides a much greater degree of protection for British Columbians.

The Premier has said that there is no way that the control of this company can ever get out of the hands of British Columbians. I want to just review for him what has happened with another B.C. company, and I refer to Block Bros. Block Bros. was a local British Columbia company with a lot of small investors. Block Bros. held the controlling interest. In 1978, I believe, there was a move by a firm in eastern Canada to buy up those shares that were held independently. Olympia and York bought up a great number of the independent shares at something like $8. They, in fact, now have by far the largest block of shares in Block Bros. Block Bros. maintained their own block of shares. I think the present holdings are 1,049,700 in the hands of Olympia and York, and some 740,852 in the hands of Block Bros., and some small amount of shares out in the hands of independent shareholders — a fair number, but small holders.

What Block Bros. is now moving to do is a consolidation of shares, Mr. Chairman — a thousand to one. So any shareholder who holds less than a thousand shares is automatically out because there are no fractional shares allowed. Block Bros. have maintained their block of shares and will be allowed to stay in there and sell at a higher price later on, but that amounts to expropriation of shares at a price fixed by Olympia and York for those small shareholders.

I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that exactly the same thing can happen with BCRIC. The small shareholders, the 100-share holders who have one block, have a board lot and are able to vote, could well be just simply ruled right out if this company gets out of control of British Columbians. We could lose our heritage, and that's the direction this could well go, Mr. Chairman.

That's why I believe we need much, much stronger controls and that's why I believe this amendment is so important that it makes it absolutely impossible for anyone outside of British Columbia to gain any control, because we're talking about our British Columbia resources. That's what makes up the value of BCRIC. That's what's in there that makes it valuable, and if we allow something to happen in BCRIC that could very easily happen, as it is happening right now with Block Bros., that kind of thing could take the control right out of British Columbians' hands and put it in an eastern Canadian firm and that eastern Canadian firm could very well be a subsidiary of some international corporation. We would have lost our heritage. We would have lost the right to share the returns from our own resources here in British Columbia.

That's what this amendment is all about, Mr. Chairman to prevent that kind of thing from happening. I have pointed out the Block Bros. illustration as a case in point of how that could take place with BCRIC, very easily, very readily and without any infringement of the BCRIC legislation as it is presently written.

I am very concerned that if this legislation goes through without this amendment, that is exactly what is going to happen to the resources of British Columbia. because believe me, we have a valuable province here. We have a lot of very valuable resources. We have a tremendous wealth. It's our heritage here in British Columbia and no government has the right to transfer that out of this province or to let the opportunity be established for the loss of that heritage to British Columbians. That's exactly what this legislation will do without the protection of this amendment and that's why I am supporting this amendment,

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind members to read the amendment and try to keep to the amendment? That would be appropriate. There will be other times to discuss this after the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I must question the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I'm sure we all want the protection and we also do not want to take away someone else’s opportunities — people who are Canadian citizens. Are you fearful of Ed Broadbent owning shares in this company? Would you deny him that opportunity of being a Canadian owning a share in a Canadian company? Would you deny him as another Canadian?

You see, I'm not fearful. The whole of your argument seems to boil down to one fact. About two million British Columbians will have applied for the shares and own the shares. You're in essence saying you don't trust them to own them. You don't trust them to keep them. You don't trust them to Keep them, is what you're saying. and I say I trust them to keep them. Obviously there's a difference. You don't trust those people to keep the shares. I say I do. I think they applied for them because they wanted them. I think they bought them because they wanted them. I think the major asset of this company is its future. I trust them. I trust them to hang on.

The member has tried to compare this with some other corporation who had ownership in large blocks that are prohibited by the legislation in this company — a broad base of ownership of two million shares. I don't know if the member has taken the trouble to look at the number of shareholders in any of the major companies in Canada or the

[ Page 426 ]

United States and what it would take with this type of broad shareholding, because there is no other like it where the ownership is so broadly based over a number of people, where it is restricted.

Mr. Chairman, the opportunity is there for other British Columbians to further their ownership if they find other British Columbians to sell to them as they want to increase their holdings. If they haven't been able to or didn't bother to or wanted to take a vacation this year rather than pick up additional shares, they may want to make a choice in the future to spend less in that manner and have a piece of investment in British Columbia and work to what is a practical board lot.

I just say that I have the confidence that the people will own the shares — the protections are in the bill; the British Columbian distribution is there. I'm not in favour of denying other ordinary Canadians from being Canadians in British Columbia as well. I was willing to give preference to British Columbians in the first distribution, but I cannot, as a Canadian, say: "I'll deny other Canadians." And you can't hold out just a few bogeymen. You're denying all the ordinary people in this country who are Canadians as well the opportunity to share in what is a Canadian company should someone decide to sell it to them willingly. I'm not prepared as a Canadian to accept your point of view, and I'm not prepared to accept your distrust of the British Columbians who have these shares, that they're going to let them go in some grand manoeuvre, because I don't think that will happen.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat has said specifically she has knowledge of specific firms and individuals who have some special trust agreements taking these shares away from the people — agreements made before the application date — and I've asked that member to provide the names. It's very serious to me. I would be interested in knowing, because no knowledge of those people or individuals has come to me. I would be very interested in that specific information, where that member has said they have specific knowledge of these people, because under the distribution system that's impossible.

MRS. WALLACE: It's illegal, but not impossible.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then if you have knowledge of an illegal act, you should have taken it to the authorities. Bring it to me and I'll take it to them. Bring it to me, and I would like those names this afternoon. Table them in the House.

It's very serious, and the member has stated it. I would like to know how long you've had the names. Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the member a question, because it's important. How long have you had the names?

MRS. WALLACE: In response to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, sometimes people give us confidential information and I just simply cannot divulge the names on the floor of the Legislature. There is nothing illegal about what has been done, and that's the point I'm trying to make. A person who comes in and us confident applies for his or her five free shares and has no money to buy the additional shares, the 5,000 additional shares.... If someone then gets their proxy to sign for those shares, and that has been done, according to my informants who are, of course, employees of particular brokerage houses.... The names are privileged.

I will talk to some of the people and see if they can give me specific cases or if they will contact the Premier. But this is the information that I have, and there is nothing illegal. It has simply been happening, Mr. Chairman, and I felt that the Premier should be aware of that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Not to non-residents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Of course, the committee has no right to ask a private member for a submission of anything, and that's an order. I must admit I find the debate rather confusing because to the best of my knowledge proxies are only issued to people who own shares.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. Perhaps part of your incorrect statement is the term "proxy." You may be talking about provision for people who are unable, through being physically incapacitated, to sign a power of attorney, not a proxy. Did you mean power of attorney?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, there is a power of attorney for where they could not physically go to the application place with their two pieces of identification to apply for their shares. You also know that to get those shares they also have to appear with their pieces of identification; they have nothing to transfer. But I know the member has stated they have the names and they have the firms and they have this identified, so I look forward to it being provided.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, apropos that last exchange, I think the Premier would agree that there is nothing illegal, no prohibition in the Act or in the bill before us, that would prevent an individual British Columbian from applying for the five shares, buying an additional 5,000 shares, and then entering into an agreement to sell those 5,000 shares to somebody outside the province. There's nothing illegal or prohibitive about that in the Act. Apart from the use of words "proxies" or "powers of attorney" or whatever it is, that, I think, was probably what the member for Cowichan-Malahat was talking about. It was that type of transaction, and that goes on.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, that wasn't what she was talking about.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Finance can shake his head and say: "It doesn't go on." There is nothing illegal about it.

But that's not really the prime issue we're talking about; that's a side issue. The primary issue we're talking about is foreign ownership. Regardless of what is in the bill, or is in the Act the bill seeks to amend, while it may prohibit foreign ownership of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation itself, it does not prevent B.C. Resources Investment Corporation selling off its assets or a portion of its assets to foreign owners. For example, this government gave to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation ownership in Can-Cel to the extent of 80 percent. In return, the government got a note for $151 million, which it's going to give back; in return for that it receives some shares. That's the transaction.

[ Page 427 ]

B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is the owner of 80 percent of the shares of Can-Cel. There is nothing to prevent B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, if it so desires, making a deal with Weyerhauser and selling those 80 percent share holdings in Can-Cel, or 50 percent, or any other percentage for some other kind of share transaction deal. If that happens, then foreign ownership intrudes into a resource that at one time belonged to British Columbia. There's nothing to prevent that from happening. There's nothing to prevent B.C. Resources Investment Corporation selling Kootenay Forest Products completely, or anything else which it owns, or entering into any kind of transactions across the border, and have the assets which B.C. Resources Investment Corporation own also partly owned, in the majority or otherwise, by foreign interests. There's nothing whatever to prevent that in this piece of legislation.

From the way the Act is constructed, from what this bill does, and from what the prospectus of the corporation says, prior to the election this was fully and completely anticipated by the government of the day, who are still the government.

It established in the Act a provision that says the government wouldn't have any say beyond a certain limited number of directors, if it held a certain percentage of the shares. With respect to the petroleum and natural gas licence transferred to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, for which, incidentally, B.C. Resources Investment Corporation say they paid $40 million — that's not correct. They did not pay, as is provided in the prospectus, $40,000, 843 for that particular licence. All they did was get the licence and issue a note, and they are now issuing shares to cover the note. They didn't pay the government anything for that particular licence which was reputed to value $40 million. No money changed hands. Nothing came into the treasury. It was a gift.

Another aspect indicates that the government fully anticipated — indeed, hoped — that so far as that petroleum and natural gas licence was concerned, foreign corporations would be involved in it one way or another. One of the terms of the licence is that B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not permitted to drill in its own right on that licence property. It must farm it out to somebody else. In an oil and gas licence, "farming out" means you go to some other company and ask them to drill on the property. As a result of that drilling, the other company earns an interest in that property. Depending on how much money they have put up, and whatever the deal is, they can acquire virtually the whole interest in that particular property. Some of those deals have already been made. Gulf Oil, for instance — not a Canadian Company — is involved in a farm-out program with B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Esso, a well-known Canadian company, is involved in a farm-out deal with B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

The very fact that government itself saw fit to deny B.C. Resources Investment Corporation the right to drill in its own right on that licence indicates it wanted — specifically and deliberately — to step out of British Columbia and find foreign corporations to drill on that property. That's what they've done.

The Premier can shake his head until it falls off. The facts of the matter are there to look at. The words are there, specifically and deliberately; and those are the terms and conditions of the licence. That's what's involved in foreign ownership.

The restriction in the Act of I percent containment, subject to order-in-council, indicates that government wants to expand that I percent at some time if so requested. I know that the Premier said he didn't mean that. What he meant was that that I percent limit subject to change by the cabinet was a control measure and meant the cabinet could reduce it if necessary. If that's what he wants to do. do it. But again it's the whole part and parcel, Mr. Chairman, apropos of the item before us right now, of the deliberate and conscious approach of the government to say: "We really do want somebody else other than British Columbians to have control and authority over the resources in this province, specifically those resources which the people owned at one time and that have now been given away." The Premier, as I say, can shake his head as much as he likes, and rattle what's inside his head around in it. He can't deny those facts as are contained in the Act, as are contained in the prospectus.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over a couple of remarks that the Premier made and the fact that the reason they want to extend it to the rest of Canada is to give every Canadian an opportunity to participate in BCRIC.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not to give it, not to deny it.

MR. LEVI: Not to deny it. Oh, he doesn't want to deny any Canadians the opportunity. Well, at the moment, of course, Canadians are not denied that opportunity. If they want to go out and buy shares in any of the companies that are contained in BCRIC, they can do that anyway.

The Premier goes on and he keeps pushing the issue that in some way there are over two million shareholders. There are two million people that are holding five pieces of paper, and they have no rights whatsoever in the company. Now we are told that there are over 110,000 people who do have voting rights in the company. There is no similarity in size between the corporation he talks about, for instance, and General Motors. General Motors has 1,225,000 shareholders. They all are able to participate in the function of the corporation. This is not the case in terms of BCRIC.

One of the difficulties I have with this debate is that here we are in this Legislature, commenting on the affairs of a company that is a public company operating in a private field. We had the Premier saying to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace): "Give me the information. If you have any information, give it to me." Now he is going to have to make up his mind that this company is at arm's length from the government — it is in fact a private corporation — and that any business which the member for Cowichan-Malahat might have should be dealt with in terms of the company and not in terms of the Premier.

But going back specifically to the amendment, it seems to me that the whole process that we have gone through with this Act.... For instance, we have never had an explanation from the Premier why it was that we set out setting up a company which was going to have investment, in the first instance, of British Columbians, and then somewhere along the line he changed his mind and what it became in fact was a free share giveaway. Then people who had the free shares could go on to buy others. What was the reason for that? Why did we move from one particular form of the company, in terms of the share issuing, into another? The

[ Page 428 ]

difficulty that we have in terms of this particular amendment is that what the Premier wants to do is, in fact, to add three types of people that are going to be dealing with the corporation: people who got free shares who have no votes: people in British Columbia who were able to buy shares in the first instance; and then we deal with the third category that the Premier wants to create — the absentee people from the province who are going to participate in the operation of the corporation. Those are three different types of shareholders.

Our concerns have been expressed by my colleagues in terms of who actually gets to own those particular shares. We'll only know later on just what kind of arrangements have been made. We do have to have some concern, both in the province and outside of the province, with people who can obtain large numbers of shares which put them into a position, along with other people who have large numbers of shares, to control the company. What is going on every day in this country are squeeze-outs of small shareholders. It would seem to me that it would be in the interests of this province that if the section here was defeated, and if the amendment we are proposing be accepted.... Then let us see what happens in terms of the shaking down of this corporation — but not making it wide open. Nobody is being denied the opportunity to invest in British Columbia. There are all sorts of companies outside of BCRIC that are involved in investment in this province where they have adequate opportunity. After all, people who do invest in corporations usually look to see if they can get dividends. We've already been told by the corporation that there are no dividends accruing here. There are no tax credits accruing here, because there will be no dividends paid.

We don't want to deny people. People aren't going to bother to do this unless — as we suspect, as we are somewhat suspicious of — shares sold at $6 at this stage later on, when they go on the market, may go to $9 and there is some quick profit-taking. That is the concern that we have. That is the concern that we have as well about this. You feel that you don't want to deny people this.

What have we got here — an investment corporation? Or have we got a kind of Las Vegas crap game where people can take out a lot of money very quickly, profit-taking of enormous amount, because of the kind of approach that has been used? That is the concern that we have as well. What is going to happen to the corporation?

MR. BARBER: Summing up for the opposition, which has proposed this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to a couple of other comments of the Premier which I think are simply not adequate. As my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville has pointed out, the Premier has said repeatedly that there are two million shareholders. That's true. The Premier didn't tell the whole story. What is also true is that they don't have a vote.

If it was just the ordinary Canadian Joe who wanted to buy into the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and if any of us were so naive as to believe that's what will happen, it would be harder for us to make our case.

The point is that we're not that naive and I doubt the Premier is either. Even the member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) isn't so naive as to think that other than what will happen is as follows. It won't be the ordinary Joe who wants to buy into the resources corporation from Toronto and Montreal. It will be the major investment houses that buy in. It will be the other major resource companies in this country. It will be the other centres of capital in Canada that invest here. Let it be noted as well that if this amendment fails, inevitably those resource companies, many of whom are controlled in other countries, will thereby control second-hand what the Premier pretends they cannot control first-hand.

When you allow a resource-based company headquartered in Toronto and owned in New York to buy shares in this corporation in British Columbia, you are defeating what you tell us you stand for.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do it.

MR. BARBER: What do you mean, you can't do it? Esso Canada is supposedly a Canadian corporation. Your legislation permits Esso Canada to own up to 1 percent of the shares in this corporation.

Mr. Chairman, there is specific provision for corporate ownership of shares in the resources corporation — specific provision in the 1977 Act, unamended in this bill, to allow corporations to own shares in BCRIC. Do you deny that? It's in your own bill.

Now when you open up and create an opportunity for corporations outside of British Columbia to take shares in BCRIC, you have to recognize the fact that we have all sorts of companies in this country that call themselves Esso (Canada) Ltd. or Gulf Oil (Canada) Ltd. They are no more Canadian than a Japanese kite is Canadian that happens to be sold by a distributor in Vancouver. They are fronts only for foreign corporations. They always have been. That's how they're established; that's why they are established. And this is what they will do: if you don't accept our amendment, they will as corporations, purportedly Canadian, end up taking shares in this company and inevitably taking control.

I would remind the Premier that in a widely held company like this it is a relatively easy matter for a small number of shareholders to exercise effective control. CPI, it is widely rumoured, with 14.1 percent of the shares in Macmillan-Bloedel, effectively controls that company. Macmillan-Bloedel is a widely held company, and 14 percent of the voting shares allow one organization within the corporate ownership of Macmillan-Bloedel to control the board of directors.

There's another problem with the Premier's inadequate response. Apart from the fact that he is trying to make us believe there are two million shareholders, which isn't so — there are only 110,000 with voting rights; only 110,000 have shares that count for anything — he's also tried to persuade us that somehow the only people who would be interested outside of B.C. in buying into these resources are the ordinary Joe. May I say it again: that's just naive. That's absolutely naive and simple-minded. It won't work like that. There will be a couple of grandmothers on Yonge Street whose stock-broking grandsons advise them to pick up shares. And they'll do so. They'll buy 500 and they'll put them away in a sock. They'll write them into their will and they will give them to their grandchildren when they pass away. But in fact, unless this amendment is accepted, corporate concentration and corporate control of BCRIC will result. It will result all the more speedily when the major centres of corporate capital and decision-making in

[ Page 429 ]

this country, which are back east and not in British Columbia, are invited in.

They will be invited in when a subsequent share offering occurs. They will take over inevitably. It is all the more dangerous when you realize that many of these corporations — (Canada) in their name — are in fact no more than puppets of foreign interests and are not fundamentally committed to Canadians or to Canadian interests. One of the many amendments that we are presenting would attempt to forestall that. We don't think that's unreasonable. We don't think that's unfair. We think that it is appropriate.

In any case, I don't propose to prolong this any more. The Premier said he won't accept the amendment. I'm sorry. We'll call a division and we'll be required to go around the province and tell the people that British Columbia is for sale, after all, thanks to Social Credit.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 29

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to move an amendment inserting as section 3(l) of the bill the following: "Section 10(c) is amended by striking out '5,000' and substituting '20,000'."

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I rise only to ask if the Premier could identify what section is amended in the original Act — the 1977 Act — because I confess I can't tell from here which one is being amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is section 10(c) of the original Act that is being amended.

MR. BARBER: I want to be very clear on this, and I wonder if the Premier could correct me if I've misread, but it would appear that this amendment would provide that section 10(c) would then read: "Where it appears from the register of members of the company that not more than 20,000 of the voting shares of the company are held by a member, he shall not be deemed to be associated with any other members, and no other members shall be deemed to be associated with him." Is that what it would read if this amendment passes? I wonder if the Premier could tell us why he wants this amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it was deemed, with so many shares, then to be a more realistic number for association.

MR. BARBER: Realistic as a means of solving what problem?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Creating what would be a legal definition of association at a lower level, that's all.

MR. BARBER: The argument that our party has repeatedly made is that among many provisions of Bill 12 we find no adequate protection against effective corporate control of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. Previously, a legal association was defined as persons who had 5,000 or more shares acting in common. If I'm not correct, I would be happy to be corrected. I didn't have the amendment before, and I don't have my notes on that section of the bill.

But working from memory only, a legal association was determined when it could be established that persons holding more than 5,000 shares were acting in common. Could the Premier tell me if that's correct? I then have some questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, it was. The member should realize we were dealing with a company with 15 million shares and an unknown additional quantity. Now we're dealing with a company that has 85 million, perhaps 90 million shares issued. The association limits are even safer, even with the higher limit of association, because of the large number of shares that will be outstanding.

MR. HOWARD: One company which is a subsidiary of another can hold 20,000 shares and still not be considered to be, for voting purposes, a subsidiary. For instance, Canadian Pacific Investments could hold 20,000 shares, and Marathon Realty could hold 20,000. But they would not be considered to be associated companies within the meaning of this Act, even though one is a subsidiary of the other.

I have two thoughts to express. First, this has been a very inappropriate way to go about drafting such complex legislation. Almost no notice was given. You came in and tore sheets off and said: "Here we are: we want to expand the authorities and the restrictions contained in this particular piece of legislation." Admittedly, when members in opposition give notice of amendments many times they don't expect them to pass. Maybe the government can say you don't really need to tell us. But when the Premier comes into the House and introduces an amendment, there is every expectation that he is serious and that he expects it

[ Page 430 ]

to pass. I think it would have been proper and appropriate to have given some prior notice so that members in opposition, who have just as much concern about this as anybody else, could have had the time to examine it and come to some conclusions about it.

On the surface I'm not disposed to support it, but there may be some rationale that would alter my opinion. In the general flurry of the way we've been doing things, no such rationale has appeared.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, there was no attempt to bring it in at the last minute, but the confusion of my visit with the Prime Minister and the Finance minister taking part of the committee and then myself taking the other has led to some procedures not being followed. I would like to have had all of the amendments in your hands in advance.

There is a 1 percent limit on ownership in the company, and it is not anyone's intention to increase it; it is there as the protection. It means that if the final accounting was 95 million shares, 1 percent would be 950,000 shares. Now 20,000 out of that is far less than I percent; it is infinitesimal. What we're saying is that for association purposes it's far less heavy than the original. When we put it in, we really only had the base of the 15 million shares to calculate against as to what the impact would be. This would have no impact. You'd have to get thousands and thousands. The number of associations you'd have to have to get up to I percent is so significant that it wouldn't be practical. We just felt it was a more significant figure. We felt that with the number of shares issued the realistic figure of 1 percent provides the same protection.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to be assured by the Premier, but I'm not. After all, the prospectus said it was a $100 million share issue. It's some months ago since that took place — and it's not because the Premier was in Ottawa seeing the Prime Minister. This is not something that has just sprung up because they were able to get 95 million shares. This was in the original prospectus. One would have thought that it conformed in all respects to the Act we dealt with in 1977.

The Premier now increases it to 20,000. So it reads that he shall not be deemed to be associated with any other members. If he was deemed to be associated, what would be the effect? What are we then looking at?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The reason for deeming someone to be associated is to make sure they don't go over the 1 percent limit with associations. It's to prevent someone having almost 1 percent, so we arrived at a limitation. It isn't practical to get that number under the 20,000 that together could defeat the 1 percent provision. If you take a look at the mathematics of it now, you can see that isn't practical. The only reason to declare an association is so they cannot contravene the I percent. As I say, 1 percent now may be 950,000 shares. When you're speaking of $100 million.... It's authorized for $100 million capital. Nobody expected the people to subscribe to the number of shares issued. It was an arbitrary figure that was picked. The original association question was looking at a much lower share issue. Because it's much higher, the association problem of what 1 percent would be is far different.

MR. LEVI: I'm having some difficulty with what the Premier said: if 190 people had 20,000 shares apiece, that would take them to the 950,000 level. But there is another safeguard in the bill. The bill says that nobody can own more than I percent. Somehow I think that the import of this is not related to the 1 percent. After all, we have the safeguard in the bill about the 1 percent.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is so nobody, through association, can defeat the 1 percent. This is a safeguard against a number of people getting just under 1 percent.... We put the low figure so that any association wouldn't be practical. You can see that with 950,000, even at 1 percent you'd need an awful lot of 19,999s to even get close to the 1 percent which is legal. It may be financially impossible for most of us. It would be the upper limit.

MR. HOWARD: Insofar as that protective device is concerned which he's talking about, would the Premier be prepared to go so far as to prevent proxies being given back and forth so that one one company can come in and vote whatever number of proxies it has?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not in this section, but with shares you can't prevent proxy voting. Proxy voting is allowed for anyone through power of attorney, and it's allowed for many reasons. Perhaps you can't show up for an annual meeting, or you sign your ballot and send it in. That's common with public companies in the private sector, and the method of voting is controlled by the Securities Commission, and falls under the Act. Certainly proxies are allowed. If I'm flat on my back in the hospital and want someone to go to the annual meeting and speak for me, I sign a proxy so they can vote my shares.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why would anyone give it to someone? I would give it to someone because I was ill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First, I should have ruled the debate out of order, because we're not dealing with proxies here; we are on an amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I thought you had permitted tremendous laxity in the rules. Now that we've got sections 3, 4 and 5 all together....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of the cooperation of the House, we've allowed some laxity. Please continue.

MR. HOWARD: All the Premier's talk about protecting and preventing and guaranteeing the 1 percent rule so that no corporations can associate one with the other and be members and subsidiaries and thus offend the 1 percent rule is just superficial nonsense, because they can accomplish the same thing by the proxy mechanism. I'm asking whether he would be prepared to extend that and deny proxies in order to ensure that there isn't a gang-up where one company comes in with a handful of proxies and controls the company. As long as the Premier is not prepared to do that, then what's before us now doesn't really matter.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

[ Page 431 ]

On section 4.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to move an amendment to section 4 as follows: (a) In section 10.1(1) by striking out "in the name of" and substituting "by" and (b) in section 10.1(2) by striking out "by" and substituting "in the name of."

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I propose to move the following amendment for the same reasons as in section 3: to strike out — 5,005" and substitute "20,000," and to insert "or deemed to be associated" after "associated."

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: What page is this on in the original Act? This is an addition to the original Act, right?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, it's a substitution.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's to the amendments. This is to the bill, not to the original Act. It is on page 2 of the amendments, if you go on section 6.

MR. BARBER: Okay, I see it. Thank you.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two amendments on the order paper.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the following amendments to section 7, on pages 9 and 10: (a) in section 18.26(l), by striking out "entitled" and substituting "authorized"; (b) in section 18.26(2), by inserting "hold," before "own"; and (c) in section 18.26(3)(a), by inserting "own" after "hold."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The members will appreciate that section 7 goes from page 2 of the bill to page 11 of the bill, and the subsections are really under the numbers.... Pardon me, it goes to page 12 of the bill — 18.10, et cetera.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if I could just explain this, this is only the strength in the wording. The legal people advising the drafters of the bill suggested the word "authorized" is much stronger and more appropriate than the word "entitled." We are inserting "hold" before "own" and "own" after "hold" for the same reason. They consider it to give more strength in legalese, and it's technically more correct.

Amendment approved.

MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. Have you got it there, Mr. Chairman? It deletes the word "not" in line 1. This is section 7(18.1)(5).

MR. CHAIRMAN: This amendment is in two specific sections, and we should deal with the one that deals with 18.1(5), line 4 first.

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: That's the one I want to deal with. We had a very extensive debate on this particular principle in the first section, which dealt with giving the free shares the right to vote. I don't intend to repeat that debate. That was the principle that we enunciated in the other section and we simply restate it here as well. For all other reasons, I'm not going to repeat it again unless some of my colleagues are going to say something. We feel that this is essential to the proper maintenance of this corporation, that people who have free shares, in fact, do have the right to vote. That's why we moved the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we reject the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to say, apropos of what the Premier said earlier about trusting residents of B.C., that I, like him, trust them. I'd like to trust them a little bit more than the Premier does by permitting them to go to the annual meeting and have a say with the five shares that they've got in their hands, and not to deny it to them.

One of the arguments put forward — I believe it was by the Minister of Finance when he had a lawyer here representing the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation — was that it would cost too much money. It would cost too much money — between $3 and $5 per shareholder — to send out these various notices and advise shareholders of annual meetings and send out proxy forms, annual reports and whatever other pieces of paper go along with it. For the 1.8 million shareholders who have applied for their five shares and will receive them — assuming that there is no consolidation and assuming that none of them sell them or otherwise dispose of them — we're talking of a cost between $5.4 million and $9 million to give notification to these shareholders about meetings and the like to permit them to come and vote.

It would seem to me that the company now has such a fantastic capitalization, that it would be overjoyed to spend somewhere between $5 million and $9 million to give the citizens of B.C., who own the resources that BCRIC now has under its control, the fundamental right to come to the annual meeting and, even though they may have only five-share certificates, to be able to cast a ballot to be able to ask questions of the company, to be able to see what's happening with respect to the resources that they own. I think that on that ground it would be very worthwhile to accept the amendment.

[ Page 432 ]

Five dollars per shareholder is a maximum cost, because I think that regardless of the appeal of the Premier, a lot of people understand that some people may very well sell their five-share certificates to others. If that happens, then the number of shareholders decreases and the cost to the company decreases. I'm talking of the $9 million per year as being the outside figure advanced by the Minister of Finance earlier — $5 per shareholder to mail it times the maximum number of holders of the five-share certificates, which is 1.8 million.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, these shareholders own the company, and the ability of it to grow and pay dividends depends on it having streamlined methods and not a lot of costs. I just feel that it was in their interests to try and provide ways in which the company can operate efficiently without a lot of cost, without a lot of paperwork.

We in government get so used to paperwork and accept it as a cost that we forget that out there in the private sector the people who own the shares expect to get dividends, and if they don't get dividends because you insisted they have this tremendous expense, then, of course, they'll have some reason to complain. If only governments were under the same constraint to continually have to give dividends because of good management, we probably wouldn't have as much paperwork as you're suggesting this company have. I'm just saying it's out of concern for those very investors and shareholders that you talk about, so that they have the opportunity some day for dividends, that money won't be wasted on a lot of costly systems.

Now they had an opportunity — and it is a continuing one — to increase to what is called a board lot. But there has to be some sense in administration.

MR. HOWARD: These people had their opportunity, I gather, to buy their right to vote and didn't avail themselves of it.

When it comes to dividends, B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is going to make the payment of dividends to the holders of these five-share bearer certificates through the process of advertising, not by mailing. They are just going to advertise, presumably in a newspaper, and say they're going to declare dividends payable at so much on certain dates and identify a dividend-paying agent, probably a bank. As I understand it, maybe what will occur is that the person will take his five-share certificate into the bank and say: "Here I am. My company has declared a dividend of X dollars or cents." And he collects it in that way. If it's a question of excessive cost and paperwork, if that is the reason the Premier hangs onto for saying, "No, you cannot go to the annual meeting and vote your five shares," then how about approaching it as the company intends to approach — with the endorsement of the government — the payment of dividends, and just advertise that there is going to be an annual meeting? People don't have to mail them information or anything of that sort Let the individual come with his five-share certificate if that's all he has and say: "Here I am as a shareholder, as an owner, a part of this company. Here are my five shares. I know they're insignificant compared with the 95 million that are out there, but here they are." Why not approach it on the basis of an advertisement'?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the company always has the right to call an annual meeting. They have the right to advertise. In this case you're talking about the reason why it couldn't be done by the mailing out of notices and things. We've given you the reason. It was a cost factor for the shareholders themselves. As I say, it's just less paperwork, and a saving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have a large number of amendments on section 7. If it is agreeable, I would like to do them in sequence — if that is possible.

The next amendment is to section 7.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, could the Premier do us the courtesy of sending all the amendments to section 7 he has in hand?

MR. CHAIRMAN: All the amendments I have before me are put forward by the opposition.

MR. BARBER: Oh, well, I've got those. I'm sorry. I thought the Premier had some.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No more. Ours are all done. Have I got all yours?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that the government benches have not had a chance to see these amendments yet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I haven't got those.

MR. BARBER: But you've told us you won't accept any of them anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The next amendment is to section 7(18.11), line 1, moved by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt).

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be fairly brief. This particular section of the amending bill attempts to delete certain sections of the Companies Act as it applies to this particular corporation. First of all, the amendment before you, Mr. Chairman, is to leave certain of the sections of the Companies Act in as they apply to this legislation, rather than to delete them.

Now this particular section in the amending Act attempts to delete quite a number of provisions that normally apply to the operation of any company in British Columbia — as the Premier calls it, any public company in the private sector. Let's deal with the first one I am attempting to put back into the law and to apply to this particular company. That is section 172.

Up until now, up until today, section 172(1) applies to every corporation in British Columbia, and I'll perhaps paraphrase it in reading it. But it says, and I am reading from the Companies Act:

"Where for any reason it is impractical to call a general meeting or a class meeting of a company in the manner in which meetings of the company may be called, or to conduct a meeting in the manner prescribed by the memorandum of articles of this Act, or for any other reason the court considers appropriate, the court may, on application of the

[ Page 433 ]

company, a director, a member entitled to vote at the meeting, or on its own motion, order a general meeting or a class meeting of the company to be called, held and conducted in such manner as the court considers appropriate, and may give such direction as it considers necessary."

Now the purpose of the amendment before you, Mr. Chairman, is to see that that section does apply to the BCRIC. I realize there is a subsequent section we are going to be arguing in terms of the flexibility that the Premier is asking in terms of the annual general meeting. This amendment is simply to make 172(l) apply to this particular corporation so that the flexibility in the Companies Act remains.

The second section that I wish to still have apply to this corporation is section 195 of the Companies Act. The government is seeking to have this section not apply to the BCRIC. We think it still should. section 195 simply says:

"Every reporting company shall, at least ten days before the date of its annual general meeting, send by prepaid postage to the auditor and to each member at his latest address as shown on the register of members a copy of the financial statement referred to in section 168 and the report of the auditor thereon."

The purpose again, Mr. Chairman, of asking that this still apply is that if we are so concerned that the little people of British Columbia are involved, we want them to have the right to attend meetings, we want the people who hold those bearer shares to attend meetings, and we want them to have the right to get financial information from that company. The attempt in this amending Act we have before us is to see that this does, in fact, not apply.

Now the third section, which was 258(l) of the Companies Act, that we think should still apply, says as follows:

"Where a proposed purchase by a company of its shares (a) is not to be made through a stock exchange, or (b) is not to be made from a bona fide employee, or bona fide former employee of the company, or an affiliate of the company or his personal representative in respect of shares beneficially owned by the employee or the former employee, the company shall make its offer to purchase pro rata to every member who holds shares in the class or series to be purchased".

We believe that should still apply to this corporation, as it does to every other corporation.

Now the Premier may have an explanation on that third one. I'm ready to admit, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't too certain as to what the Act was getting at, but my instincts are that if the general terms of the operation of the company law in the province are to be changed and amended by this Act.... In making this company such an exceptional one that the normal provisions of the Companies Act don't apply to it. I think the Premier should be under an obligation to give us a very detailed and good explanation as to why he doesn't want the Companies Act to apply to this corporation in each of these cases.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this section modifies provisions of the Companies Act so that they will apply to the bearer shareholders more appropriately. What we've done in deleting these sections means they'll be picked up in other sections later on and actually will then be more appropriate and better for the shareholders. I'd say that where we're deleting 172, relate that to 18.13 in the amendments; 194, relate that to 18.15; 195, relate that to 18.16; 258, relate that to 18.19 and 18.22; and 315, relate that to 18.24. What we're actually doing — because of the size and the uniqueness of this company — is making more appropriate protection rules concerning the bearer shareholders. This was done to provide more opportunity to the company, and for them to deal with the company. In all those areas it's a matter where their opportunities would not be appropriately covered under the present Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment to section 7, 18.13, again moved by the member for Coquitlam-Moody, is to delete subsection (1) of this section and substitute the following: "A general meeting of the company shall be held and conducted annually."

MR. LEGGATT: This one is a little easier to explain. The corporation has fairly requested an Act which would give it something quite unique in the history of companies and in the history of company law in British Columbia. They have asked for something really very exceptional: they want the right to avoid the annual meeting. I'm not saying they're going to avoid the annual meeting, but this clearly does give them the right to go to court and say to a supreme court judge: "We think it's inappropriate that we hold an annual meeting." If they can convince that judge to that effect, they do not have to hold an annual meeting.

The Premier stated in this House today that their concern with regard to this corporation is to see that the little people have some interest in this corporation: to see that the people of British Columbia — all these 1.8 million people who took their free shares — have this experience of ownership. But he doesn’t want them, according to my reading of this bill, to have the experience of attending an annual meeting and having some say in this corporation. He doesn't give those bearer-shareholders a vote. There is clear capacity in this bill to make sure they're denied access to an annual meeting to find out who the directors are, what they're being paid; to get some real information about the operation or the assets of this corporation.

Before we moved on this corporation, and before the original BCRIC bill was introduced, I, as an MLA, had the right to come to this place and ask questions of the ministers about these assets. But if this bill passes — and if this section passes — it will mean that no one who holds the bearer-shares will have the right to vote. It will also mean there may be no annual meeting at all. It may not be needed to have one.

In terms of this bill, the Premier had better have a first-class explanation why this exceptional rule should apply to this company only and not to the rest of the corporations of the province. There is a clear reason why they want this provision in. They don't want the bearer-shareholders to get together and try to register those shares and assign proxies and allow people to come to that meeting to vote. They don't want it at all. Otherwise. If you want to have the bearer- shareholders — who, incidentally are quite insignificant in terms of ownership in this corporation, but nevertheless are out there — interested in the company, Mr. Premier, it's very easy. Just stand up, accept this amendment and say: "Yes, we'll allow the law to apply to BCRIC

[ Page 434 ]

as it does to every other corporation in British Columbia. We don't need an exception with regard to BCRIC. We've got a public corporation in the private sector, and we're willing to play the rules by the same game that all the other private corporation are." But the Premier has something different here. He's got an exceptional corporation. He wants to rewrite the rules and change the game. The reason is he doesn't want those little people at that annual meeting. That's the reason, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge you to support this amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In rejecting the amendments it's not our intention to prevent anyone to deal with practicalities or allow at least the opportunity for a proper procedure to deal with the practicalities of meetings. I'd say that section 172 of the Companies Act empowers a court to prescribe specific procedures for the holding of a meeting of shareholders of a company in circumstances where it is impractical to follow the normal procedures established by the company's articles. This section expands the procedures slightly for the the resources corporation. This broader language, Mr. Member, would permit the courts to provide that corporate business could be transacted by some other mechanism than at an actual meeting, for example, by means of a mail ballot — you could have a number of ways. And it deals, of course, with the court making such a determination.

It's really to allow additional practical ways for the shareholders to deal with them; it isn't to restrict them. If you were suddenly thrust into some unusual situation, such as the new stadium that is going to be built in the greater Vancouver area not being able to house all of the shareholders — although you would like them all there, there is no practical housing to fit them all in — a court may decide on some way they could manage in that particular circumstance. That's really to expand the opportunity, not to restrict it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment creates 18.25(2): "No foreign resident or corporation shall acquire direct or indirect control of the company by proxy or in any other manner."

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simply to provide a discretion in the hands of the court. We are ready to concede that the government has tried to control this through the bill. This is simply to provide additional flexibility to a court if it finds any other way that the government may have missed in trying to restrict this. We just wanted a general catch-all section so a court can say: "You shall not have indirect control of this company, period."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we have adequately ensures that only Canadians can own the company, and ownership by individuals or companies or associations of companies is limited to 1 percent. Provision is in the bill to provide for the company to ask for a declaration of ownership. As such, the avenues are there to protect any subterfuge in declaring identities. We're opposed to this section only because it's not necessary. All of the protections are in the bill right now.

MR. BARBER: Our amendment doesn't contradict a word of your own legislation. In the judgment of our legal advisers, who are competent, it strengthens the hand of the government and gives, as my colleague said, greater freedom to the courts to rule in favour with certainty that no foreign ownership shall be obtained.

I don't understand how you can object. It's totally consistent with your own bill, but it strengthens the hands of the court if it's a close question of narrow, legal and judicial interpretation.

I don't understand how you can be opposed to that.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

[ Page 435 ]

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment is to section 7 — 18.29(2). It's signed by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. It says: "All trusts or escrow agreements for ownership or purchase of shares must be registered and published in a directory to be issued at the annual general meeting of the company."

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: Briefly, the amendment speaks for itself. It's an attempt to break into normal trust arrangements. I realize it's quite exceptional in the law to do this, but in this particular instance we feel that it would be useful so that an accurate examination of the trust holdings in terms of shareholder ownership is released and revealed at the annual meeting, in order that the directors to this corporation and, naturally, the public of British Columbia can be assured that the restrictions on share ownership both in terms of Canadian ownership and in terms of the 1 percent are clearly complied with.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In opposing it again, we all get caught up in government too long, and it just creates more bureaucracy. It's not necessary in the view of the government for the intent of the Act and the protection of the shareholders. We oppose it.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment is Part VI, 18.31, moved by the member for Nanaimo.

Hon. members, the amendments have been renumbered because of the number of the previous amendments.

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: I take it from your invitation that the amendment is considered to be in order.

This amendment, in part, arose out of the failure of the Premier to tell us information about BCRIC, in particular about the salary paid to Mr. Helliwell. He professed not to know at one point — I'm not sure if that was always the position — but certainly the government up to even today is the only shareholder in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. The government owns all the shares in this. I think the Premier doesn't even know the terms. I'll read it: "That there be full disclosure of all forms of remuneration paid to all senior company staff, every director, at every annual general meeting."

As I was saying, this in part arose out of our interest as representative, if you like, of people who owned all the shares in BCRIC. We failed to get this kind of information that is available to shareholders of some companies — not all of them, but certainly to some of them. But this company is different, because the legislation before us now made it possible for every resident in the province to become a shareholder. That everybody who took advantage of the opportunity does own some shares in B.C. Resources Investment Corporation makes it extremely widely owned, and a corporation that everyone is interested in. We felt it was incumbent upon this corporation to be more public than any other corporation in the matter of revealing information. We feel quite strongly that the shareholders — in this case almost all the people in the province — should know just how much they're paying their senior employees, and also how much the directors are getting for their work in running this corporation.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone is being overpaid. I think it's important that the very best people be hired, and that the best people be directors. There is a tremendous responsibility on that corporation in view of the success in selling the shares. We think it's important that the shareholders have access to this kind of information. Therefore we move this amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government doesn't accept the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder whether the Premier has any reason. He's assuming the approach he took previously in telling us, in effect, that it's none of our business how much David Helliwell is getting. He's now saying the government does not accept this. Is it in line with the same thought that nobody should know what this man gets. or that nobody should know what the employees get, or the directors get? Is that why they won't accept it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Chairman. It comes under the same rules as any other company under the Companies Act, the Securities Commission, and information they make available to their shareholders; and I'm sure they will. I don't think it needs it.

HON. MR. MAIR: But they don't.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I tried to make the point that this company isn't the same as other companies. I know the Premier was looking for this specific amendment when I was discussing it. But I did try to make the point very strongly that this corporation is different. By virtue of the success the Premier had in promoting it, it is an entirely different company. It was very successful; nobody can take that away from it: it went very well. But it is a different corporation; there's no question about that.

It is not true to say that the shareholders of MacMillan Bloedel, for example, can stand up at an annual meeting and ask how much Knudsen is getting. One has to go to the States to get that kind of information about senior employees of MacMillan Bloedel. You can get it down there, but you can’t get it here in B.C.

We think that that kind of information is impossible the Premier's puzzled — because they're listing their stuff on the American Stock Exchange, or their prospectus is American. They are required to give information about what senior employees earn, or what benefits they get as employees of the corporation. But that kind of information is not required to be known in British Columbia for B.C. corporations, unless they start listing their stock across the border so it's not available here. The Companies Act doesn't provide that it shall be available. We're not suggesting the Companies Act be changed, but we are urging that in this particular corporation, a different corporation, this kind of information be available.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member may have a point not related to a single company, but he

[ Page 436 ]

may have a point regarding information that applies to all companies, to their shareholders and the amount of information that's given them. That might be considered in dealing with other proposals. I would hate, if you're dealing with that as a principle, to single out a single company for such disclosure, leaving the others. So if it's a point to be made, there should be changes made in other areas. I'd rather not single out this particular company without considering what may be a very fine argument — that all companies may have to consider this. So we still reject it.

MR. LEGGATT: Just to follow up what the Premier said, this would be an excellent opportunity for him to set a precedent. We can therefore anticipate a change in the Companies Act in the very near future so that at last the shareholders of these corporations in British Columbia and the public of British Columbia will know what those salary levels are. It's a most reasonable request.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members will be pleased to know that while we have disposed of one amendment, we've also acquired another one. The next amendment is....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order and the member does not wish to move it?

MR. BARBER: No, I'm sorry. On a point of order, what amendment were you calling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This amendment is 18.30, moved by yourself.

MR. BARBER: I thought we had another 18.30, moved by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).

MR. CHAIRMAN: This particular one is section 7, amended by deleting the words "or such other percentage as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" in subsections (1), (3), (4) and (5), signed by yourself.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an excellent amendment which provides basically that if the government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is out of order. The amendment is beyond the scope of the section.

MR. BARBER: It is? Could you tell me specifically why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be moved later on under another section, but it's out of order.

MR. BARBER: Would the Chairman permit me to ask leave of the House that that amendment, numbered by the Clerk to conform with ordinary statute law, be accepted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 7 of the original bill is beyond the scope of section 18, which is what you intend to add; on that basis, it is out of order.

The next amendment is labelled 18.32, by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It reads as follows: "All expenditures made by the provincial government to promote the disposition of the shares, including bearer shares, shall be repaid to the government by the company."

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: We know that the argument might be in contention against this decision of the provincial government to distribute the shares — or some of them — which it had in its possession, and therefore that should not be a charge against B.C. Resources Investment Corporation but rather a charge against the Crown because it was a decision of the provincial government to do that.

The whole process of distributing the five shares to residents in B.C. was part and parcel of an advertising program to develop and expand B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. They were companions.

While the advertising program financed by the general public and the payments of the $5 to the financial institutions to process the applications, paid by the treasury, was really a companion to attracting people to buy additional shares up to the 5,000 per-person maximum; and because the resources which the people of British Columbia originally owned were given away to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in return for a bunch of pieces of paper identified as 15 million shares; and because a petroleum and natural gas licence identified in the prospectus as having a value of $40 millions of dollars — a possession of the people of British Columbia — given also to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation for nothing in return except a bunch of pieces of paper identified as shares; and because the beneficiary of the resources that the people of B.C. at one time owned is a public corporation in private hands called B.C. Resources Investment Corporation; because that and those shareholders are the beneficiaries, and the holders of the five-share bearer certificates are not

[ Page 437 ]

even able to go to the annual meeting and inquire about what's happening with respect to the resources that they once held, I think it should be a charge against B.C. Resources Investment Corporation for the whole advertising and promotional campaign paid for by the people of British Columbia. In total the result was that the people of British Columbia lost those resources which they once had under their domain.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this has been answered before, but there are two distinct payments. One, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is paying a commission for the new shares being subscribed — which put money into their treasury. The government paid for its distribution and effectively the advertising campaign to carry out that distribution. The costs have, in the view of the government, been fairly divided because of the nature of the government distribution scheme and the information that was needed to make all citizens aware of it as a distribution from government. We reject this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment, hon. members, is moved by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). It is on section 7, deleting section 15(3) of Part VII and adding to Part VI the following: "18.33. The board of directors shall be composed exclusively of Canadian citizens who are residents of British Columbia."

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Once again I must start with the same argument that I used in the previous amendment that I moved, and that is that this company is different. This company is B.C. Almost every person in B.C. Is a shareholder in this company. All of the assets that the company presently owns are investments in B.C., apart from the cash, I suppose, that is anonymous and could have come from anywhere. But we'd like to see this company remain a B.C. institution, B.C.-owned — we've lost some amendments that would have ensured that or that would have helped ensure it — and B.C.-run. We'd like to see that the directors would be people in B.C. who knew B.C. Presently the directors are all residents of B.C. The are all, to my knowledge, business people in B.C. who have the interests of our province at heart, know what's happening in the province, and have a better understanding of what should be happening in the province.

We think it would make it more and keep it much more of a B.C. corporation if we could ensure that all of the directors were Canadian citizens who were resident in of British Columbia.

We think it's one more way of emphasizing that this should be a B.C. corporation, that its investments should be in B.C. and that it should be run by B.C. directors for the people of B.C.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Chairman, we've taken an adequate provision to protect the B.C. interests, while allowing for what may be the broader Canadian interest — that is, not restricting but always guaranteeing that 60 percent of the board shall be residents of British Columbia.

It may be that the board will always be 100 percent B.C. residents but I would not eliminate the chance to bring additional talent to the board which would be of benefit to the shareholders. To be that restrictive would be to say that nowhere else in Canada do they have the competence or something to add that may be of benefit to our shareholders. I would hate to restrict, in some amendment like this, the company in the future from getting that type of advice.

We've guaranteed that 60 percent of the board will be British Columbian. We've also guaranteed that additional excellence that may be found in other parts of Canada can be placed on the board.

I think these shareholders deserve the best, and it would be folly to suggest that there isn't somebody out there who has something which can improve the lot of the shareholders of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

We reject the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier wants to make room on the board of directors for Ian Sinclair, and that's just not right.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next amendment is in Orders of the Day, and it is....

MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we have moved from 27 to 34, and I think only the Hansard people know what we're doing here this afternoon — I hope.

This amendment deals specifically with unborn children, and because it is the Year of the Child — and even if it wasn't the amendment would be appropriate — the Premier is often fond of talking about the future: "British Columbia's major investment is the future." Well, the unborn children are part of that investment; they are also going to be the debt carriers of this province. They will carry the debt that we leave behind — and we leave behind debt, particularly this government which has increased the debt load. At the same time it is important that the children who are going to be born and have been born since June 15, 1979, should also have an opportunity to participate in this B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

There are some two million shares that are undistributed in terms of the free share issue, and it would seem to me that where we have in British Columbia some 35,000 to 37,000 children born every year, which would involve some issuing of 160,000 to 165,000 shares a year. It would be very appropriate for us to make a commitment here in respect to the birthright of children who are going to be born in this province. They should be able to have on their birth five free shares as part of this corporation. I would hope to hear the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) say something about this: this is very much in the interests of children.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge all the members to put aside party politics and think about children and do something about seeing that the children who are to be born or have been born since June 15 have an opportunity to participate in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

[ Page 438 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the very reason that children were included in the first instance — that this free offering and distribution was not restricted to those of the age of majority — was for the very reason of our commitment to the young people and the children of this province, and we included everyone up until the date of application. No government can leave an open-ended date, and in all applications there have to be some criteria and a stopping point. But the children were included, and it was right up until the application period. For other children, not those not yet born, but other children who have not yet applied, they can still apply till the end of the year, if they were here and eligible at that time. But we did include the children as much as possible.

Government must always deal with arbitrary deadlines. You have to be a certain age to enter school; it's tough on the kid who's two days late. I have one son who is born in January and he has to wait a year to go to school or to apply under the rules and regulations that surround a government service or a government distribution.

So in this case, again, where we're dealing, Mr. Chairman, with a fixed amount of shares, not an infinitesimal amount of shares.... We're dealing only with the shares in government ownership, and they're not unlimited. There is a finite end. You cannot leave an offer that is open to infinity, such as this suggests, because we only have so many shares in government. When they're gone we can't print any others. They are an asset, and as the government owns them, all the things that will happen for future generations will be their heritage. So we have taken the children into account in this Year of the Child.

That's the very argument I used for those who said this offer should only be made to those of the age of majority. I said no, this must be to all British Columbians, including those born up to the date of the closure of the application. We've considered them. It's not possible to have this open-ended offer and that is why we reject this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it strikes me that the amendment is perhaps out of order, and I've already allowed some debate on it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, if it's out of order, rule it out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "The birthright of the children shall be preserved by ensuring entitlement to the five free shares to all children born in British Columbia subsequent to June 15, 1979." It's beyond the scope of the bill, to start off with, and secondly, it makes no reference to the fact of someone passing through British Columbia and a child being born here. That would again violate the scope of the bill. So the amendment is out of order.

The next amendment we have is moved by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to section 18.35: "No sale of any of the assets of the company shall take place without the prior approval of the Legislative Assembly."

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: May I say right now, for the record, that I appreciate the courtesy and the help of the Clerk and the Chairman today. There was one numbering problem with one of the amendments, and that threw all the subsequent amendments out of order, numerically as well. I appreciate the help of the Chair in straightening out our error, and I apologize for that error as well.

This amendment, which I am glad is in order, would protect, in a very powerful way, a very important principle in British Columbia. The principle that we wish protected is that the assets of the Resources Investment Corporation may not be sold or transferred by the board of directors of that corporation without the express consent of the Legislature in advance of such sale or transfer taking place.

Now the law right now is clear. The board of directors of the Resources Investment Corporation does have the power to sell or transfer its assets to whomever. My colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made the point some time ago that the board of directors could, if it wished, sell Kootenay Forest Products, Plateau Mills or Can-Cel to Weyerhauser or Crown Zellerbach or Rayonier. It can do that in law. I would refer you to Hansard, September 1, 1977, at page 5207, where the Premier himself agreed. "I doubt they would do that," he said, referring to the possible sale, "but yes, they would have the power to acquire assets or dispose of assets in the best interests of the company."

What our amendment seeks to do is to require it as a matter of law that the board of directors of this corporation may not sell any of the assets, and may not transfer any of the assets of the corporation without the express approval received in advance by this Legislature.

We have expressed repeatedly the concern in opposition that inevitably corporations, acting in combination, will effectively control the assets of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. Corporate control will become concentrated in a very small number of hands. When that happens, as inevitably it shall, that corporation could, as the law presently stands, sell any of the assets it. Inherited and was given by the people of British Columbia to anyone. It could sell them to the Japanese; it could sell them to the Germans; it could sell them to anyone. We acknowledge that there may be a good case to justify the sale or transfer of those assets. There may be a good case, although it's yet to be presented to us. Should such a case be made, it could be arbitrated by this Legislature. Should such a need arise, that need could be adjudicated by this Legislature. Should such a demand occur, this representative of the people could, and should, determine whether these assets that were the property of all of the people may be sold or transferred to anyone. It's an important principle. It's one of the two or three most important among the many amendments we have proposed today.

I'd like to point out again that the official opposition is terribly proud of the success of these corporations. We're terribly proud of the achievement of the corporations we obtained while government and which increased in value while we were government.

It is a matter of some emotional concern to us, as well as political, that these assets not be sold anywhere by anyone for any reason unless this House makes that choice — not by a board of directors, but by this House; not by the corporation, but by all of the people of British Columbia through their members of this Legislative Assembly. We feel very strongly about that.

Those assets were obtained in the name of all the people. They made profits that were returned to all the people. On behalf of all of the people, they grew and

[ Page 439 ]

appreciated in value. That being the case, we think that all of the people should be entitled, through this assembly, to determine whether those assets shall be transferred or sold. We ask the government to accept this amendment. It is of vital importance to us. We think it is a case that the people of British Columbia will understand and support. If there is good reason to sell or dispose of these public assets, let that reason be assessed. If that reason has merit, let it be approved. But if it has no merit, let it be denied by this Legislature and nowhere else. It's an important amendment to us.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Unfortunately, several things would happen if you put this in, one of which is that you take away the ability of the directors to respond to their shareholders and deal strictly as a public company in the private sector. You then become a company which can't even dispose of the pencils or the wastepaper baskets in its inventory without a vote of the Legislature. It's unfortunate for a number of reasons. It would inhibit the company from even carrying on its clerical business: they couldn't dispose of their pencils, erasers, papers, anything, without coming to the Legislature. We reject the amendment.

MR. BARBER: The Premier is not arguing against the principle but is concerned about its literal application. Now if that's the case, then let the Premier offer an amendment — we'll put over this debate, if you wish — that would restrict the definition of assets in our amendment to those which are listed in the prospectus. Now would that be fair? That doesn't include pencils and wastepaper baskets. It doesn't include desks or secretaries' wigs. It would restrict it exclusively to those assets which are listed in the prospectus of the corporation. That would meet our requirement. We're not interested in transferring or disposing of pencils. We're talking about the assets listed in the prospectus.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You are then going to inhibit this company in the future. Over and above the economic decisions they make for their shareholders, people will be imposing political decisions which may not be in their best interest. You're putting political considerations over a company which we're trying to free from government.

You're trying to say that some legislators may be wiser than the shareholders or the directors that they elect. We must allow the private sector the opportunity to make its own decisions. There is a feeling that if you get elected to government, you're smarter and you can tell everyone in the private sector what to do. That's the very thing we're against, this idea that government is smarter. This is against the whole concept of the private sector making its own decisions and electing its own directors. I reject the idea that just because someone gets elected to government, he's smarter and should intrude into the private sector.

MR. BARBER: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. What the Premier has said is that the board of directors, to be elected by 110,000 shareholders, can be presumed more competent and representative than this board of directors elected by 1.5 million people. He's wrong. This House is supremely competent to make these choices, not a group of 15 directors chosen by 110,000 people at a shareholders' meeting. This particular board of directors called the Legislative Assembly is, in fact, supremely able and supremely competent. A million and a half people chose us. We are responsible to all of our constituents.

The Premier's claim that somehow a small board of directors elected by a small number of shareholders is thereby more competent, more able, more representative and more accountable is absolutely wrong. This is the place where final accountability can be found. That's why this amendment is appropriate. That's why this particular board of directors for the corporation called British Columbia is best able to handle this or any other matter concerning the transfer and the sale of the assets of the resources corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, that may be true if you wanted to keep government control over it, but many people voluntarily invested in the company because it was going to be a private-sector corporation, without government interference and without that government control. You can't do that. I just say it would be against the very opportunities that are there in the private sector. It's very presumptuous to say that somehow government should have the power to intrude. I reject it on behalf of the government.

MR. LEGGATT: I did want to point out to the Premier that he gave us a long lecture about how much he supported the Foreign Investment Review Act and how his government had refused to interfere in the Foreign Investment Review Act. I would remind him, Mr. Chairman, that the Foreign Investment Review Act is a device to interfere in the private sector, and prevent the private sector from selling out. So you can't have it both ways. Mr. Premier. If you want to support the Foreign Investment Review Act, support this amendment as well which would prevent these assets being sold out to the United States.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, you've got the Foreign Investment Review Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 28

[ Page 440 ]

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

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. HOWARD: A brief comment on section 8, if you would, Mr. Chairman. What section 8 does, and what the Act says as well, although different words are used here, is for ever and a day into the future, no matter that B.C. Resources Investment Corporation may be successful or unsuccessful, the shares of the company are eligible for investment by trusts and under the Insurance Act.

Those types of investments are usually reserved for companies in which investments can be made under the Trust Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act, are reserved usually for companies that have a solidness to them, that have a good earnings pattern, that are secure, that are blue-chip, so called. That's the reference point. That decision is made, as the Premier knows, not by a legislature, but basically in the marketplace.

If the Premier adopts the marketplace concept of assessment of the value of a particular company, then he should withdraw it and let the marketplace in the future determine whether or not B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is a company of such a stature, of such an earnings pattern, of such a respectable position that the marketplace will determine whether or not it's eligible for investments under these particular Acts. It's wrong to project into the future forever — regardless of anything — that the company is so eligible.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're optimistic and very hopeful for the company. But if the situation — the gloomy picture which you didn't predict, but said could arise — did arise. I'm sure legislatures can act in the future to amend legislation. But right now it gives great opportunity for those funds to invest in the company. And, remember, governments of the day can always act to situations of the day. I trust the company, and I trust future government.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

MR. BARBER: The amendment that failed before now succeeds, at least for order purposes, as section 11: a new section to the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: section 11 as amended by deleting the words "or such percentage as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council in subsections (1), (3), (4) and (5). "

On the amendment to create section 11.

MR. BARBER: The intent of this section is to ask the government whether or not it sees any situation develop whereby they would want to vary the percentage, now here at 1, above the figure 1, for purposes of ownership, individual or corporate. The government has told us that no owner, individual or corporate, may hold or control more than 1 percent of the total shares authorized at any given time in the BCRIC.

Unfortunately the bill provides that the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council may vary that figure at any time it wishes without recourse to this Legislature. The purpose of this amendment would be to ensure that if the 1 percent figure is varied at all, it may only be varied downward; that we may not have a situation where cabinet brings in an amendment that allows a corporation to have 5 percent of the shares, say. We would entertain one that says they may have only half of 1 percent or one-sixth of 1 percent. We see no justification whatever — nor has the government ever made a case in favour of this — in varying amount above the 1 percent figure.

That being the case, what we would propose to do here is restrict the power of the Lieutenant-Government-in-Council to amend the 1 percent guarantee in any other way save downward. If there is a case to be made for moving it upward, it contradicts all the other cases the government has been making. If there is a case to move it up above 1 percent, then it contradicts every other argument they have made. Accordingly we know you'll accept the amendment, because it strengthens your hand.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We have no intention of moving it upward. The problem with your amendment is that it takes away our opportunity to move it at all, because you delete the opportunity: "...or such other percentage as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." It takes away our opportunity to move it at all, and it may be necessary to move it down. It allows future governments the opportunity to protect the shareholders of the corporation. I find it highly unlikely that it would be used. If it was to be used, though, it would be used in a downward motion. The problem with your amendment is that in seeking to do one thing, it doesn't allow us to move it down at all so we reject the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Would the Premier be willing to author himself now — we'd be willing to support it — a ceiling? Redirect the burden of our amendment to your legislation to guarantee that it may not surpass the simple ceiling of I percent. If your intent — and we'll take you at your word — is that it shall not be varied except downward below the I percent ceiling, then will you yourself author such an amendment? If you find ours unacceptable, that's fine. Will you bring in your own? Will you do it this session? Will you tell us now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member has my word of my intent. I hope we would pass the bill now, and I will consider ways in which we could do that. One of the problems of a complicated series of sections that deal also with the Securities Act and others is having your intentions come out in the bill. The member fully understands the government's intention and the need to have that power and, with the assurance that we have no intention of moving it up, perhaps we can pass the bill; and we can consider ways in which we could do it. The amendment the member proposed would take away all our protection. If we pass it, we'll take it under consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

[ Page 441 ]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. I called for a division on third reading of that. Obviously you didn't hear me, but I did call for a division.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there seemed to be quite some confusion. Some were standing, but I did not hear the call for a division and I'm sorry. It would take leave to reverse the procedure. I hear "noes" already.

Order, please. The bill has already been declared an Act, and therefore the reversal is not possible. The time to have objected would have been at the time of declaration.

MR. LEA: I didn't have a chance. You told me to sit down until the vote was over.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. I did ask for a division with regard to this bill and, unfortunately, I understand that it wasn't noticed. But I ask with leave, that a recorded division on this particular vote on third reading be permitted, if that is permissible under your rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I would be happy to entertain that, except that leave cannot be requested at this point because it has already been declared an Act. I say again, the time to have objected, and I believe that I would have listened to it immediately, would have been at the time of declaration or before the time of, declaration. I apologize if I did not recognize the point at the time.

MR. LEA: The Legislature has the power to do what it wants within the confines of this House. I called for a division. The member for Coquitlam-Moody called for a division and then the applause started on the government side, and the call was drowned out and the Act declared. It was all over so quickly that there was no opportunity to get up and do that. I didn't even know what they were applauding about, and it seems to me that we can do what we want to do. The government, I am sure, would have no opposition to taking a division to show where we're all at on this.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member, and I would perhaps caution the House that perhaps a little more certainty may accompany a request for a division. and I am sure that whoever is in the chair would be happy to recognize it.

Interjections.

AN. HON. MEMBER: We can record it in Hansard. I think we can take it as record that you would have voted "no."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Chair is tied regarding the declaration of the bill. On consideration and reflection, if there were some vehicle which would lead to a counting of the vote I am sure that the Chair would entertain that, but I am unaware, and certainly there's no motion before the House at the present moment that would make that possible.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask leave to have a division on third reading of the bill that we've just finished debating.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. In order to resolve the issue, would this be acceptable? The Chair would be happy to take under advisement the entire matter and to see whether or not a vehicle can be derived whereby the count can be taken, but it wouldn't be able to be done this evening. Perhaps I would be able to make a recommendation at a later sitting. Would that be acceptable to the House? Thank you.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There would be a standing vote at the time, hon. member.

MR. LEA: At that time?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, sir.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of B.C. Ferry Corporation and the Motor Carrier Commission.

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented the report of the Special Committee on Selection, appointed June 6, 1979, which was taken as read and received. [See appendix.]

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the fifth annual report of the British Columbia Development Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, to avoid some confusion I would like to propose a motion to the House at this point so we can assist the Chair in respect to this difficulty we had in obtaining a recorded division on Bill 12. I move that the rules of this House be suspended in

[ Page 442 ]

order that a recorded vote be taken at this time for third reading of Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think we already have agreement in the House that we would see whether we could find a proper instrument by which a recorded vote could be taken. I do not know of one at the present moment. I will return with a report to the House at a later sitting. We have agreement on that, so I must decline the motion.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

APPENDIX

Pursuant to Order, the Hon. H. A. Curtis (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services) presented the following report:

REPORT
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ROOM,
June 25, 1979

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed on June 6 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report and recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committees for the present Session be as follows:

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS — The Hon. R. H. McClelland, the Hon. J.A. Nielsen, the Hon. D.M. Phillips, the Hon. E.M. Wolfe, Messrs. Davidson, Hyndman, Mussallem, Rogers, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. Barnes, Hall, Hanson, and Passarell.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS — The Hon. A.V. Fraser, the Hon. J.J. Hewitt, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, the Hon. D.M. Phillips, the Hon. L.A. Williams, Messrs. Davis, Heinrich, Hyndman, Ree, Ritchie, Barber, Barnes, Hall, Lea, Leggatt, Levi, and Stupich.

AGRICULTURE — The Hon. J.J. Hewitt, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Kempf, Mussallem, Ritchie, Rogers, Segarty, Mrs. Wallace, Messrs. Gabelmann, Nicolson, and Stupich.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING — The Hon. J.R. Chabot, the Hon. J.A. Nielsen, the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Messrs. Heinrich, Ree, Rogers, Smith, Barber, Gabelmann, Lorimer, and Passarell.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE — The Hon. K.R. Mair, the Hon. L.A. Williams, the Hon. E.M. Wolfe, Messrs. Hyndman, Segarty, Smith, Strachan, Ms. Sanford, Messrs. Hanson, Howard, and Macdonald.

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES — The Hon. G.M. McCarthy, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, the Hon. P.L. McGeer, the Hon. J.A. Nielsen, the Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm, Messrs. Brummet, Ritchie, Ms. Brown, Ms. Sanford, Messrs. Cocke and Lauk.

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS — The Hon. A.V. Fraser, the Hon. K.R. Mair, the Hon. D.M. Phillips, the Hon. T.M. Waterland, the Hon. E.M. Wolfe, Messrs. Davidson, Strachan, Hanson, Lockstead, Lorimer, and Mitchell.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES — The Hon. J.R. Chabot, the Hon. J.J. Hewitt, the Hon. K.R. Mair, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, the Hon. T.M. Waterland, the Hon. L.A. Williams, Messrs. Brummet, Strachan, Mrs. Wallace, Messrs. D'Arcy, King, Lorimer, and Skelly.

CROWN CORPORATIONS — Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Davidson, Davis, Heinrich, Kempf, Mussallem, Ree, Ritchie, Smith, Mrs. Dailly, Messrs. Howard, Leggatt, Levi, Macdonald, and Nicolson.

Respectfully submitted.

HUGH A. CURTIS, Chairman

[ Page 443 ]

APPENDIX

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

12 Mr. Barber to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 12) intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 to amend as follows:

Section 2, line 1: By adding after the word "repealed" and the following substituted: "On any offering of shares of the company to the public at large orders shall only be received from residents of the Province."

12 Mr. Levi to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 12) intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 to amend as follows:

Section 7 (18.1 (5) (Part VI) ), lines 1 to 4: To delete the word "not" in line 1 and the word "not" in line 4.

Section 7 (Part VI): To add as 18.27:

"The birthright of British Columbia children shall be preserved by ensuring entitlement to five free bearer shares to all children born in British Columbia subsequent to June 15, 1979."