[ Page 699 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Cheekye-Dunsmuir project. Mr. Lockstead –– 699

Public hearings by B.C. Hydro. Mr. Lockstead –– 700

Status of Indian women. Ms. Brown –– 700

Skin diving and Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Howard –– 701

Medical Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 15). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Cocke –– 701

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 701

Ms. Brown –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

On section 10.

Ms. Brown –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

On section 19.

Mr. Cocke –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 702

Ms. Brown –– 702

Mr. Cocke –– 702

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 703

On section 23.

Mr. Stupich –– 703

Mr. Cocke –– 703

Report and third reading –– 703

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979 (Bill 21). Committee stage.

On section 9.

Mr. Cocke –– 703

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 704

On section 12.

Mr. Cocke –– 705

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 705

Report and third reading –– 705

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 705

Mr. Hanson –– 706

Mr. Passarell –– 707

Mr. Nicolson –– 707

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 707

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act (Bill 17). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 709

Mr. Gablemann –– 710

Mr. Cocke –– 710

Mr. Mussallem –– 711

Mr. King  –– 712

Mr. Lauk –– 712

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 713

Division on second reading –– 714

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 18). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 714

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 715

On section 12.

Mr. Lauk –– 718

On section 13.

Mrs. Dailly –– 718

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 718

Mr. Lauk –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

On section 17.

Mrs. Dailly –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

On section 18.

Mr. Lauk –– 719

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 719

On section 19.

Mr. Lauk –– 720

On section 20.

Mrs. Dailly –– 720

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 720

On section 22 amendment.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 720

Mr. Lauk –– 720

Report –– 721

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates.

On vote 117.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 721

Mr. King –– 722

Appendix –– 725

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour today to introduce to the House two people who grace the floor of the Legislature this afternoon: Robert and Ann Strachan. Robert Strachan served this province in public life for many, many years. He was a regional board director and played a prominent role in other municipal affairs for many years before entering the Legislature of British Columbia, in which he sat for some 23 years. He served as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for a major portion of that time, and distinguished himself and our party in the process. He concluded his public service in this institution as a minister of the Crown from 1972 until 1975, and thereafter served as agent-general in London in B.C. House. I ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to Ann and Bob Strachan.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I certainly want to endorse the remarks of the House Leader of the official opposition and welcome Ann and Bob Strachan to the floor of this House. I'm delighted to see them here. I'm a relatively new kid in the place, but I recall some very wise counsel which was offered by Mr. Strachan in my first few days, and I think it was to the effect of, "Don't let the bleep wear you down," and it was good advice. It's just wonderful to see them here today and the government certainly welcomes them both.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the members to be aware that in the galleries today and in the House are Mr. Jim Kinnaird, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Dave MacIntyre, the secretary treasurer of the Federation, and other representative members of the executive of that organization.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to add my personal word of welcome to Bob and Ann Strachan. I might say that I offered him this seat today, but he decided against it.

I have two guests in the gallery today that I would like the House to join me in welcoming. One is Mr. Sucha Hayer from Duncan, and the other is a young lady whom I have known for the last few years. She's a very good friend of mine, and an employee of the Doman Industries mill in the Cowichan estuary. She works there as a strapper operator and for the last three years she has been the plant chairman for the IWA. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Miss Darlene Mancell.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery today we have two distinguished guests from the central Fraser Valley, Mr. and Mrs. Duff Menzie. Mr. Menzie is a retired bank manager, which makes him an extra special friend of mine. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Menzie.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of introductions. I'I do them all now. We have visiting from New Westminster Mrs. Ina Watson and her friends and my friends, Mrs. McCarthy from Scotland and Mrs. Mclean from Surrey.

Also, we have Mr. Jerry Slamon and Patrick O'Hagan who are visiting from Ireland. Mr. and Mrs. John Scholefield, residents of Surrey, have been regular attenders at the council meetings over the years. I ask the House to welcome all of these people to the Legislature.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the member's gallery today is one of British Columbia's better known professional foresters. He is in charge of forestry for Canadian Cellulose Corp. He is also on the executive of the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters. In both of these capacities, Mr. Speaker, this gentleman makes an ongoing contribution to the cause of better forest management in B.C. Would you please welcome Bill Backman.

MR. BRUMMET: We have with us in Victoria today a group from the Village of Taylor, at the south end of the North Peace riding. For those of you not familiar with Taylor it is, of course, the Pittsburg of the north and the gateway to the land of oil, gas, farming, milk, honey, lumbering and Hydro, among other things. Anyway, they are: the mayor, Ron Murphy; Alderman Vivian Pylatiuk; the village clerk Marvin Stein; and Pren Kashykp, who is the consulting engineer. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: I have two guests to introduce to the House today. The first is one of Prince George's notable handball players and the administrator of our regional hospital, Mr. Bert Boyd. My second guest is the past president, and, I might add, first president, of the Prince George–Yellowhead Rotary Club, Mr. Grant Hughes. I would ask the House to welcome these people.

Oral Questions

CHEEKYE-DUNSMUIR PROJECT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On May 1 of this year the minister made the following statement, in part, to the B.C. Wildlife Federation: "What we have to have is a procedure where everybody can have a say as to whether or not there should be a dam, whether or not we need the power, whether we should have some other kinds of power. These are the kinds of things that the public should have input in." Yet in a letter to the Sunshine Coast Regional District, dated June 21 of this year, regarding the Cheekye-Dunsmuir power line the minister said: "I have concluded that a public hearing is not warranted."

My question is: can the minister explain why he is now repudiating that policy he announced to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and is he willing to deny the public any say in the protection of the environment in this instance?

HON. MR. MAIR: I have never felt it was a very rewarding exercise to have a public hearing into something that had already been decided and was part of government policy. I didn't feel it would be in order at that stage of the game — the decisions having been made — to grant that request; that was the reason.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yesterday during the debates on the estimates, the minister pleaded ignorance to my

[ Page 700 ]

questions on the environmental studies in regard to this project. Based on his correspondence to the regional district of June 21 it appears the minister had full knowledge of these studies. Will the minister now admit that these studies did take place and that he ignored the recommendations of these studies?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer to both questions, if I understood them correctly, is no.

PUBLIC HEARINGS BY B.C. HYDRO

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a new question for the Minister of Energy. I wonder if the minister can explain why he has now announced that Hydro will break its word that it would use a less devastating route, instead of slashing through eight parks, or park reserves, and 11 watersheds in the Sakinaw Lake crossing of this transmission line. Is this an example of the promised new policy of the government controlling B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The investigations and discussions in regard to the various alternate routes were considered for the crossing of the Sechelt peninsula, and the determination as to the final site, of course, did deal with the environmental impact. Mr. Member, you know as well as I do that you run into that situation that nobody really wants it in their backyard or where they can see it on the Sechelt peninsula. At the same time, your colleagues and my colleagues on Vancouver Island recognize that people over here are asking: "When is the transmission line going to be built?" It's one of those problems we face, Mr. Member, where government has to make a decision, and that decision is a hard one. I think Hydro has taken a position to lessen as much as possible the environmental impact and the impact on the aesthetics of the area.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Can the minister explain why he has now announced that Hydro will break the promise it gave to a mass meeting of the residents in that area earlier this year that it would conduct public hearings to ensure that no tragic and irreparable errors were made by an insensitive and powerful bureaucracy?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know what his question is, Mr. Speaker. Do you want to repeat it?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like an answer from the minister on this question. I would like to know why he has changed his mind and not allowed public hearings into this very controversial project.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess if I can respond with a question, Mr. Speaker, you're saying that I have changed my mind in regard to public hearings. Did I make that statement?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister is responsible to this Legislature for the activities of B.C. Hydro. If he is not responsible to this Legislature, then who is? I expect an answer from that minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I'd like to warn that question period is not the time for a debate or an exchange of ideas between sides. I think that we should have questions and answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is aware that a news release of Hydro has come out, and the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, of which I am one, has made a decision as to the location of the crossing that is most suitable and has the least environmental impact. That's the final decision. Of course, that is their decision and now it will come before the Environment and Land Use Committee in regard to the proposal for the location that they have selected. I was part of that decision.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister should be aware that the studies done by the big consultants and the Environment and Land Use Committee are deathly opposed to the route chosen by the minister and B.C. Hydro. They are going against the direct wishes of those two bodies; the minister must know that. This government is the most secretive government. They make their decisions beforehand without regard for the people.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Environment. Inasmuch as yesterday he pleaded ignorance about these hearings, and inasmuch as it has now been made public that B.C. Hydro has chosen this route, will the Minister of Environment assure the House that he will spearhead a movement to make positive that the environmental concerns are protected in the route of this line?

HON. MR. MAIR: I will continue to try to do the duty I swore I would do. I can't be any more specific than that. I will try to protect the environment to the best of my ability.

STATUS OF INDIAN WOMEN

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Environment in his role as the constitutional doyen of the province. As the minister knows, native Indian women are the only people in Canada who are proscribed by law as to whom they must marry or else lose their status. In view of the fact that some of these women are now in Ottawa asking for the protection of the national Human Rights Act, is the minister, in his role as the constitutional expert and who speaks on behalf of the constitution for the people of British Columbia, supporting their request for protection under the federal Human Rights Act?

HON. MR. MAIR: It seems to me that any answer I give is going to be the wrong one. I can't say yes, no, or take it on notice; I'm in a terrible dilemma. But I must say to the member that I did not know of this particular situation and that these ladies are in Ottawa. If the member would be good enough to send me the details of their visit there and what they seek to achieve, I'll be delighted to look at it from the point of view of my position not as a constitutional expert but as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Confederation and see whether anything therein falls within my duties, and I'll be glad to advise her of it.

MS. BROWN: Has the minister in his role as the chairperson of the constitution committee of the province taken the dilemma of these women to the federal govern-

[ Page 701 ]

ment? I want to refer specifically to a brief which was sent to the minister and to every member of the Legislature in May 1978, pointing out that they were being discriminated against under the Indian Act. Has the minister in his role as the chairperson of that committee taken this concern to Ottawa and asked for amendments, either of the Indian Act or for their protection under the federal Human Rights statute?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am the chairman of the committee on confederation.

The matter to which the member alludes does not fall within the duties that I have as chairman of that committee, nor within the duties of the committee itself. That is not to say that I don't agree with the member. I would be delighted to take a look at the problems she puts forward and to see what I can do. However, it does not fall within my duties and therefore I don't think that I can answer the question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have the member's word that he is chairman, but in the meantime, I'I call him chairperson because that I can verify — the other I can't. [Laughter. ]

HON. MR. MAIR: If that was a challenge, I accept it.

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the challenge, Mr. Speaker. I'm a chicken, no question about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there are moments in this House that are truly enjoyable. Now back to the question period.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. native women presented a policy paper to all members of the Legislature, including the minister, in which they outlined their discrimination under the Indian Act. All I'm asking is whether the minister — if he hasn't done so already — would take up on one of his constitutional journeys to Ottawa the dilemma of the only group in our society who are told by law what race they must marry into or else run the risk of losing their status.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I should refer to the member as "my dear" after that last exchange.

In any event, Madam Member, I will be delighted, if you wish, to let you have a list of my duties as the chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Confederation. Then perhaps you will be able to see that if I am to take your concerns to Ottawa, it will have to be as a private member, not as chairman of that committee.

SKINDIVING AND THE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask the minister, in view of the deaths in May of two fishermen who were skindiving for a species of clam called geoduck and who were required to work in that capacity without the Worker's Compensation Board conducting any inspection of the fishing vessels from which they worked or having any involvement whatever in standards of safety, if he would take steps to instruct the Workers' Compensation Board that this area of work should no longer be ignored by it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain that it has been ignored by the board. But I will make immediate inquiries, take the question on notice and provide the member with the situation in which the board finds itself with respect to this particular occupational class.

MR. HOWARD: There's a supplementary question. I wonder if, while the minister is doing that, he would mind checking that there is in the Ministry of Environment a preliminary study with respect to the clams themselves. Will the minister then, combined with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), who has an interest in the clams, exert his influence and say that you should have a similar interest with respect to the lives and the safety of the people digging the clams?

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, just before commencing — unfortunately I was not in the House — I too would like to extend the very best welcome to Bob and Ann Strachan.

Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 15: Mr. Rogers in the chair.

section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that the House Leader of the government side is in a real hurry. He says: "Aye, aye, aye." I just want to ask a simple question, and that question is: is this new terminology "preregistration hospital training" — as opposed to internship — becoming generally used across the North American continent and throughout the world, or are we unique in this respect?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm told this is the term which is becoming fashionable everywhere. It also has a more practical application because there are several categories or designations of persons working in hospitals before registration. This, then, will accommodate them. I'm told this is the term that's becoming acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet, could I ask the House as well to recognize another former member of this House — and almost a stranger in the gallery — who is here and say hello to a former member from one of the Burnabys, "Digger" Ray Loewen.

MS. BROWN: I would ask leave of the House to give a very special welcome to the person who stepped down so that I might represent Burnaby-Edmonds.

[ Page 702 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps members will allow the Chair to say a special word of welcome; and, strangely enough, in this position, it's "Chairman" quite easily.

MR. BARNES: I only wanted to remark on the last remarks, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to suggest that I hope the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds is not here on business. [Laughter.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the use of preregistration hospital training means that the role of the intern is now being expanded to include nursing psychologists and a number of other people in the health delivery field, and is not exclusively referring to doctors.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, not here, because this Act only allows for the licensing of physicians.

Sections 2 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MS. BROWN: This is another instance, Mr. Chairman, where there's been a change in name. Actually it would have been very helpful to us if there had been an explanation that accompanied these name changes so that we would know exactly what's going on. Now the dean of medicine is no longer the dean of medicine. The dean of medicine now becomes the director of the undergraduate clinical clerkship program in the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this is not what this amendment does. It doesn't change the name of the dean of medicine. The dean of medicine will remain. It only gives this responsibility to this new position — which, I must say, is a mouthful — but it is a person at the university who already does this in fact. So it's the director of the undergraduate clinical clerkship program in the faculty of medicine who does what this section says now. All we're doing is giving him that opportunity in the legislation. The dean of medicine remains as the dean of medicine.

Sections 10 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. COCKE: The minister advised us when we were enjoying second reading of this bill that there was a situation in the past where a doctor could provide a stumbling block for any kind of investigation. That has been to some extent eliminated here. He also agreed that there is a possibility here that the committee, if they were biased against the doctor, could very well also see to it, because of the fact that he's now suspended at this point in time, that he be suspended for a significant period of time without having a hearing. He must have a report from the committee 14 days prior to the hearing, but it doesn't give him any kind of assurance that he might get a hearing within a reasonable time.

I wonder whether the minister has thought in terms of any kind of a change that could provide just a little bit of control over the committee. Now I'm not suggesting that the committee is going to be biased or act unfairly, but there's a possibility that might occur. When you're making law, it strikes me that you should make law so that it is as even-handed as at all possible. I'm a little distressed that there is this kind of a situation where I see a possibility of people subverting the intent of the law. I wonder what the minister has to say about that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess rather than putting in actual numbers of days — it would be difficult to do that — I recognize the problem and promise that we'll have a look at it if there's a way of doing it. The investigation is to go ahead forthwith, and there is the word "promptly" in there in terms of submitting the written report. The legislative people will tell us that "promptly" can be challenged if it isn't, in fact, promptly, although it can't be tied down to a specific number of days — 7 or 14 or 21 or whatever. But I'm told that the words "promptly" and "forthwith" do allow for some action if in fact "promptly" and "forthwith" doesn't happen. But I promise I can take it under advisement and have a look at it and watch it very carefully. If something happens, we could see if there could be some legislative changes which would help.

MS. BROWN: Under section 48(a) where it says "may appoint an investigating committee of one or more persons," I'm wondering if it's deliberately vague to ensure that lay people may be part of this committee, or whether it's implied in the statute that only medical people can sit on this committee. For a number of years one of the recommendations coming from lay people to governments of every political stripe has been that there should be at least one lay person, if not more than one, or people of another discipline sitting on these committees to investigate professional groups. I'm not just speaking of doctors; I think lawyers need the same kind of protection, too. Is this implied lay people under this particular section, or isn't it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There certainly wouldn't be any problem with a lay person being put on this committee. In the old Act it said "any person." The new Act simply says it "may appoint an investigating committee of one or more persons." That does not tie them down to members of the medical profession.

MR. COCKE: I love the medical practitioners in our province. For the most part, they are super people. But they do have a tendency to do what they kind of have to do and not do what they don't have to do. Under this section in the old Act, I recall very vividly where I persuaded them they should have a member of the citizenry at large, a lay person, to sit down under grievances or when a practitioner's licence is being looked at by the college. They agreed, and there was a person appointed who acted on a few occasions. Suddenly, in late 1975, there was an election. I was no longer Minister of Health. I talked to that chap the other day and asked him: "How often have you been called to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to act as the lay person on the grievance committee — or whatever the committee is called?" He said: "Not once." That's the problem; and it's the problem I suggested to the minister. I'm not suggesting the minister has any hand in this; he hasn't. Had I known, I would have been in touch with him some time ago to acquaint him with something he would have no knowledge

[ Page 703 ]

of, except that I just happened to trip over it. That's what I said in my original argument here. It's all very well and good for the minister to suggest: "Well, we'll wait and see if anything bad happens." That's not good law, in my view. I really think the minister should give an undertaking that this uneven-handed option or ability will be taken out of here and that he will assure us that in the next session of the Legislature he will at least make every effort to bring forward another amendment to this Act that will give the kind of even-handed approach I think this law should have.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I could be corrected by the lawyers, but I'm told that "forthwith" in law means "immediately." That means that the actions must be taken immediately; there's no choice. If they aren't taken immediately, then that person is open to some kind of action. Of course, after this there is always the opportunity to go to the courts.

I think the medical appeal committee — which is not this committee and which is not under this Act — now has a lay member appointed who must sit, not one who is to be asked by the doctors or anybody else, as the patterns of practice committee now has, or is about to have. It is about to have two lay members on it; they are about to be appointed now. From that point of view, we've got some coverage there. This legislation, which in many ways is not the government's legislation.... I'm told that "promptly" and "forthwith" mean "immediately," and if it doesn't happen, then there can be action taken.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there can be action taken. Do you know what you can do? You can sue. But the problem is that later on in the Act you say you can't sue. If you go to section 22, the protective provision sees to it that those people who sit on those committees cannot be sued by the person charged. You've given almighty protection to these people.

The reason I have not brought forward an amendment is because this thing has to be carefully thought out by legislative counsel, et cetera. The Attorney-General is nodding his head.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Pass that message along to some of your colleagues.

MR. COCKE: Now, you see, he spoils it all by giving us a smart remark.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like the minister to be very well acquainted with the fact that there is a problem here of potential. He's nodding his head. I'm quite satisfied with that.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. STUPICH: I have just one very brief question, Mr. Chairman, that I have to ask for a constituent of mine. Is there anything in this section that could possibly be used to interfere with the proprietor of a health-food store in selling vitamins and foods like that?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not in this Act, Mr. Chairman. There are some others.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what's happening? The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is getting the same kind of phone calls, wires and visits that the Minister of Health and I have been getting. I can't believe it, you know. Here I have been for the last solid week an apologist for the Minister of Health, my avowed enemy by our constitution. I've had to point out that he has not changed the Act; if anything, as a matter of fact, he's broadened the Act.

Anyway, this is the kind of area where we always create suspicion. We always create suspicion around the professions by virtue of all these protective devices. I think that we really have to look very strongly sincerely at an umbrella type of legislation for all of health care in this province, as suggested to some extent in the Mustard report, as hinted at in the Castonguay report, and as hinted at and also dealt with to some extent in the Foulkes report.

Everybody's twitchy, and I notice that the minister now says that the college is getting to the point where it is prepared to give some of its responsibility to another authority. Good, let's talk about it, and let's just see what can be done, because in that way you have an assured public. Right now, every time you introduce any kind of a change into the Medical Act in this province, forty thousand people say: "There go the doctors again, charging over the walls and trying to take over everything." It's unfortunate. I don't see it in this Act, but that's what happens every time. The reason they're twitchy is that there is an authority here that gives the doctors some pretty heavy responsibilities, and along with that some fairly heavy protection.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15. Medical Amendment Act. 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

NEW WESTMINSTER
REDEVELOPMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this section bothers me; I'm not at all sure that there has been enough consideration of this whole question of parking in downtown New Westminster. It strikes me that in the process of trying to put this together....

Look, I'm complimenting the government to some extent. It's the second option that I would have had. I wish

[ Page 704 ]

they had gone ahead with the first option, but, you know, when a new government's elected they make some stupid decisions.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is so all-wise, should stand up sometime and put his words on the record. You don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Member. So why don't you keep your peace? Anyway, Mr. Chairman, back to the question before us. In regard to the parking situation that I referred to the other day, I wonder what the minister has to say about Douglas College. It now has 2,600 cars parked around it, and when it's moved down to Royal Avenue and allocated 600 parking spots, I wonder what that is going to do to the downtown core of New Westminster. There are going to be 2,000 free-floating cars around there trying to find some place to park. Now does that not inhibit potential development in that area, if you have that kind of a parking problem? There is very, very little likelihood that they're going to go way down onto the ramp, and there isn't room anyway for any particular cars down on the ramp if there's any kind of shopping or other people doing business in the downtown core. I'm really worried about this, and I don't think it's brought out well enough. That's one of the reasons why I've been suspicious about the fact that Douglas College is being moved there, when they have the wide-open spaces of half or a good third of the old Woodlands property and part of the old penitentiary property that was given to them by a very thoughtful former government.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, can the minister talk to us about this whole question of parking? What is in prospect?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, before I answer I would just like to take this opportunity, while I'm on my feet, to mention that the people I introduced earlier, Mr. and Mrs. Scholefield, are very much a part of this particular building. Mr. Scholefield's father was the man who started the library, and apparently there is a plaque on the wall in his honour. There was also a copper beech planted in his memory on one side of the building.

The two young fellows who are visiting here from Ireland are here because naturally they want to enjoy British Columbia, and they're very impressed. They've only been here a few days. But they also have a mission in that they're attempting to track down all the relations to John Hart. Mr. Jerry Slamon is a distant nephew to the hon. former Premier John Hart. I'm very pleased that they are here, and I was very pleased to have the opportunity of introducing them.

With respect to the question on the section.

MR. COCKE: I'm glad you're getting around to it, Bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Member.... I think it shouldn't be overlooked that New Westminster has been very much a part of the planning, and it will continue to be the force with respect to the planning for the downtown core. It's New Westminster that looks at the plans of all these public or private facilities and stipulates the amount of parking which is required for each and every facility. However, much behind the whole purpose of the plan and the redevelopment is to introduce residential living into the downtown core. The whole of the waterfront section 1s envisioned to be redeveloped to allow good accommodation for the students who, in fact, will be able to walk to their classes. In this way, they will introduce life to the downtown core which has, up until now or certainly for a good many years, seen a decline of this very necessary ingredient.

So it's hoped and thought, as I understand it, by the city of New Westminster that the parking provided is ample for the requirements as the redevelopment takes place. They are, in fact, looking to the day when the need for the car within that downtown core will be diminished to a degree. Instead, we'll be looking towards other means of transportation, and to having people living near the school so that they won't have to travel all that distance.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this minister has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when you don't know what you're talking about, make a flowery statement and sit down.

People are going to move beside a two-year college so that they can go to school. I wonder whether they're going to buy one of those very high-priced condominiums or townhouses that are planned for there. Really, I asked a definitive question. If it was to be answered at all, it should have been answered definitively. But instead of that, the minister says that he hopes someday we're going to have some transportation down there. Well, you haven't now. You hope that the city of New Westminster is going to see to it that all of the conditions are met for a better development of this downtown area. But, Mr. Chairman, in this very Act is the amount of money that's set aside for parking — $5 million; for city street improvement, there's $2 million, et cetera, et cetera. At least the borrowing power is implicit in the Act. But I would just like the minister to suggest to me whether there's been any real thought at the city level. I'm afraid, unfortunately, that the city is quite prepared to almost overlook anything to get this downtown core going. I think that's a bit of a rub. That's right. They're desperate. They're drowning. That area has been neglected not only by governments but by the business community for years. There's been no real thought.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, how it worked. Every year the chamber of commerce would meet and they'd bring their adding machine down to this special meeting, and everybody would be asked: "How much are you or your company going to invest in the downtown area of New Westminster?" They'd add it all up — "I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that" — and then at the end of the meeting they'd walk away assured. "Imagine, we're going to have $250 million invested!" Well, you know, that's the kind of bathwater, and that's the problem.... But I really don't think that enough real planning is going into this. The fact is that you are leaving ICBC in the high-priced Vancouver core and you're moving Douglas College in with very little thought in terms of parking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just one quick comment, Mr. Chairman. Actually the legislation provides them the opportunity of determining and planning the amount of parking or whatever else is required. It's still the city that determines the needs and the numbers, and that's how I would like to see it.

[ Page 705 ]

MR. COCKE: What is this bill all about? This is a partnership bill. It is a partnership between the government, the corporation and New Westminster city. It's not just the city. That's why you're doing this. It's an entirely new approach to the whole thing. Frankly, I think it's a rather good approach. That's all. Let's not hang it all on the people in downtown New Westminster — or at least the city council. I reiterate: they're desperate; they really want things going. They're desperate to the point that I've been lobbied all to blazes on this bill and any other project that's been going.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is a distressing section. I don't understand why this bill has to be a proclamation bill. Is there anything that you're worrying about with this bill? When is it going to be proclaimed? Why does it have to be proclaimed? Why can it not be proclaimed with every other piece of legislation that goes through this House in this session? Any time I ever see a proclamation bill, that's one that I can see sitting there at the doorway of the cabinet of this province waiting to be proclaimed. Now if it's important to get this downtown core moving, if it's important to get this bill through, why do we have a proclamation section in the bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives us the opportunity to proclaim section by section. I see an article here from the Columbian by the mayor, where it stated: "The expropriation section, for example, may not be required, and thus the proclamation of it may be unnecessary." That's the purpose of it: we can proclaim section by section.

MR. COCKE: That probably is the case, Mr. Chairman. But if that's the case, that section shouldn't have been in there.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Why? Why should it be there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must just discuss the section 12.

MR. COCKE: Okay, well, it worries me. How soon are you going to proclaim all but the expropriation section of the Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In due course.

MR. COCKE: In due course — that's the whole thing. This Legislature is discussing a bill and the cabinet is being given a carte blanche to decide in due course when they're going to pass the bill. Now come on, get serious! We have far too much from this government of this kind of high-handed treatment of people in this province. The proclamation section gives you the right to fool around with it for the next ten years if you want. If I were the people in New Westminster I wouldn't be any too confident tonight that you're going to do anything. The Attorney-General says: "In due course." Let that be shown on the record.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 21, New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. CHABOT: As the Legislature is aware, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing was established in December 1978, with a mandate to ensure the maintenance and improvement of a quality system of parks and the encouragement of the best use of Crown land for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and recreational opportunities within the province of British Columbia. This bill I am presenting today, the Land Amendment Act, 1979, is the result of a review of ministry legislation which was undertaken to see what changes were needed to fulfil this mandate.

Later I will be presenting a companion piece of legislation, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, which, together with this bill, will provide my ministry with the legislation that is needed to achieve the goal of making land available to citizens of British Columbia. The Land Act is one of the original statutes of this province and has been the focus of a series of amendments from time to time to keep it abreast of changing circumstances and government policies.

As you are aware, one of the purposes of my ministry is to provide for the disposal of Crown lands for both public and private benefit. Concern has been expressed that the process of disposal is both time-consuming and antiquated, and thus a major purpose of this bill is to make it administratively easier to provide a Crown grant conveying land in fee simple. Clearly our citizens wish to own, Mr. Speaker, not rent. Several provisions of the bill have this in mind.

The definition of Crown grant, Crown land and disposition are clarified and simplified so that more simple legal formalities can accompany the sale of Crown lands. Reservations to the Crown and the provision of titles are simplified and more clearly stated. The bill also contains the provision whereby the requirement for full payment is replaced by a power to transfer the title and secure the unpaid purchase price through a loan. Our intent here is to sell building lots with a modest down payment and provide the purchaser with a loan for a period of up to one year, so that he can have the opportunity to obtain mortgage financing and commence construction. To prevent speculation, construction of a residence will be a condition of sale on these terms. Provision for this program will be contained

[ Page 706 ]

in regulations which we will be preparing later this year. There is also in this bill a provision that expands the authority to issue licences of occupation for the use of Crown lands. That will make it easier to provide for the use of unsurveyed remote areas of the province.

A second major purpose of the bill is to clarify administrative responsibility for Crown land that is retained by the province. Put simply, the bill provides that all administration of Crown land that is not specifically the responsibility of another ministry is the responsibility of my ministry. In addition it provides for the transfer of administration to other ministries by order-in-council. Thus, where a ministry has the need for Crown lands to accomplish a specific project — for example, the construction of a highway or a hospital — the administration of the land would be clearly transferred to them. There are, however, many situations in which other ministries do not need to have full administrative responsibility for Crown lands, but need to exercise control over a specific use. For example, the Ministry of Forests must have full authority to administer the timber on the land, but does not need control of the land itself. Thus matters of non-forest use of forest lands and the removal of lands from the provincial forests for sale — after its removal, I might say — are to be the responsibility of my ministry. This clarifies matters for the public who will only have one agency in the provincial government to deal with in applications for the use of Crown lands.

Finally, the bill provides for the establishment by regulation of all interest rates charged on moneys owing on Crown lands by regulation. At the moment the Act has a specific interest rate of 8 percent, which is unrealistic when one looks at the interest rates of today. The purchaser of Crown lands should pay a fair price for the land he is buying, including a fair rate of interest on money he owes the Crown. Interest rates will be set and adjusted, as we are already doing in the Home Purchase Assistance Program.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading of this bill.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the ministry which the minister represents is known by its employees as the "Ministry of Leftovers." We will be talking about that in our discussion of the second bill. The fact that Lands, Parks and Housing are in one Act doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The remarks of the minister actually relate to the two bills, and I want to address just Bill 16, the Land Amendment Act, 1979.

The powers which the minister had prior to the introduction of this Act were, in fact, adequate. All of the activity that is being embarked upon could actually have been carried out under the Act, with the exception of the fact that people can pay over time for Crown land. The option to purchase was within his power to grant before.

I would like to address my remarks more specifically to what has happened prior to the introduction of this bill. And that is that the expectation level has been escalated by this government since 1975, when the Premier went around the province and talked about 95 percent of the land being owned by the Crown and being inaccessible to the public. He knew at that time, as we all know now, that the largest percentage of that land is already under the disposition of the tree-farm licences. The amendments to the Forest Act gave longer and more stable tenure — actually in perpetuity — to the forest companies. We'll be talking about that when we talk about the Forest Act.

I was interested in the remarks of the minister that some of the tree-farm licence land would be made available to the public, because I think it should. I think we'd get better forest management practices in this province if a certain percentage of TFL land was, in fact, under the jurisdiction of this Act and was made available to the public.

When the 1975 election campaign was underway and the 95 percent figure was being used, it was followed later on by announcements that large tracts of land all over the province would be made available to the Crown. Every MLA in this House is getting inquiries from constituents about the courses and procedures to get access to that land. The minister then made an announcement. He withdrew the large tracts, and talked about 64 million acres.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He never did.

MR. HANSON: He never did, eh? The reports in the press were that the minister stated that 64 million acres would be made available to the public of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You don't believe everything you read in the press, do you?

MR. HANSON: He's going to go down in history as the 60-million acre man that never made it.

What we have now are 800 parcels in only one area of the province, the northeast sector of the province. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) enjoys that. But the other members in other constituencies are going to have to direct their focus to this minister. He raised, expectation levels and he's going to have to account for that. He's going to have to answer for the fact that land is not available, and probably will not be made available.

My colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) some time ago tabled a report that was prepared by Mr. O'Genski, the director of rural subdivisions, and I would like to read the cover letter into the record:

"To: C.O. Grey, Assistant Deputy Minister

"Re: Crown Land Development and Sale

"Attached herewith is a detailed report and summary for our total ministry covering Crown land for development and/or sale in the following categories...."

MR. LAUK: He said it didn't exist.

MR. HANSON: That's correct. When the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) alluded to this, the minister said this report didn't exist.

Here are the categories: rural-residential; recreational; small holding; agricultural; rural; commercial; urban residential.

"The report has been priorized in the following manner: l (a) for immediate disposition to: (i) the general public, (ii) the private sector...."

Why would Crown land be made available to the private sector? It's public land.

"1(b) disposition within six months to: (i) the general public, (ii) the private sector...."

The report goes on to indicate the various categories.

[ Page 707 ]

The question was raised in this House, and I would like to ask the minister why certain Crown lots are being made available to the private sector. It's supposed to be for individuals, not real estate companies. That question was raised by the member for Prince Rupert and also the first member for Vancouver Centre. We would like to know why the administration of this will be through the real estate industry.

In summary, I would like to say that the powers that this Act provides were already in existence, with the exception of the granting of the payment over time. The option-to-purchase provision was always in existence. A great disservice was done to the public by raising expectation levels all over the province that they would have access to public lands, which I don't believe they will ever have. I'd also like to mention briefly the Ilmar Tavalar report on the management audit of the land management branch. I understand the remark of the minister that the system presently in place requires some upgrading. I agree.

In the report summary of conclusions, it says:

"There appear to be deficiencies in almost all aspects of the land disposition process, characterized by the referrals going to 23 government agencies for every conceivable opinion. There is a constant transmittal of notices between head offices, the applicant, the region and the districts. Some 150 forms are used. The relevant land interests are found from cluttered maps where everything is saved, including the irrelevant and old lot registers, and where everything looks lost. The result is that Crown land is not easily parted with by the branch. In fact, the average disposition takes over a year."

I and my party support accessibility of land for people The option has always been there to occupy it, to make improvements on it and to purchase it. We are in support of that. However, we do think that the minister has done a great disservice in that the land expectations are raised to such a high level that they will not be met.

MR. PASSARELL: I have many concerns about the proposed land bill in front of us — a land bill that is related to the acquisition of Crown land to the public, and one bill that shows no regard for the wishes and aspirations of the native people of this province. While specific aspects of land claims and aboriginal rights have not been dealt with in B.C., the assumption still remains that the Crown holds vast sections of land in trust for the first citizens of this province to rightfully gain their land.

If we the legislators walk through the rotunda on the lower floor, there are displayed four paintings showing the development of British Columbia. In each of the paintings there are only two races shown: the whites and the natives. Both groups are displayed as companions, needing each other for cooperation and development. There was cooperation then, but we, the immigrants to this land, have forgotten that initial cooperation and good will. A hundred years ago when we, the immigrants of this country, bartered with the natives, we used to give some trinkets or some beads. If the natives were lucky, a piece of paper was signed in exchange for a treaty.

Manifest destiny was always an integral part of our development. But while this specific bill deals with land occupied under treaty settlement, the foundation has been made that the acquisition of Crown land in other areas of the province will be easier in the future. I ask this government one simple question. Can you give assurances that any disputed land involving Crown land will not be put up for transaction? The land claims and aboriginal issues across this province will probably not be dealt with in our future, but the fact remains that if parcels or sections of Crown land are sold, we the government, on both sides of the House, are once again displaying a lack of concern to the native people of this province. In the Canadian Bill of Rights there is a section that protects the security of the person and the enjoyment of property. We cannot ignore the fact that the acquisition of land is a right that all individuals strive for.

Mordecai Richler's character, Duddy Kravitz, strove for land more than anything else in his life. Our native people also strive for land, and I sincerely hope their fate will be better than Duddy's. I do not believe we, the immigrants of this country, can give the province away for land claims. It is not realistic to give away settled land. But the unsettled land, the Crown land of this province, is a trust of the Crown and there is no individual ownership of the Crown. All the residents share an equal part of that vested interest.

We have often turned our back on the native people of this province, but before we start to divvy up the province further into private ownership land lots, let us as representatives of the public make a pledge to our first citizens that disputed land will not be sold.

In conclusion, I sincerely hope that all members of this House will not jeopardize the rights of the native people in this province. I sincerely hope the dreams and the aspirations of the native people will not become another plea in the night to us, the immigrants.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like also to get a response from the minister when he sums up debate. I know the minister is aware that the Canada Land Inventory, besides designating the land capabilities for agricultural use, with which people are very aware, has done other studies for forestry use and, in particular, for wild ungulate land capability. I would like the minister to express the degree to which that land capability is going to be considered in terms of choosing lands for disposal. I think it is a very, very high priority. It is these wildlife ungulates which really distinguish our province as one with probably the greatest population. At he rate they are going in Africa, it will be the last remaining area for wild ungulate herds.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In response to the member for Nelson-Creston, the suggestion he has put forward is one which is in practice today. The land capability for wildlife is always taken into consideration. Prior to any disposition of Crown land taking place, there's an automatic referral to Fish and Wildlife for their reaction to dispossession. We heed the advice of Fish and Wildlife, and we are criticized from time to time for having done so. Nevertheless, in most instances we take into serious consideration the views of Fish and Wildlife about habitat.

I had some difficulty with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson). He went around in a circle. He sounded like Bob Williams for a minute. He was against the bill at the outset, and he eventually came around and said he was all for it. He suggested that the bill did nothing, then he went on to relate how it facilitated our ability as a government to make Crown land available to people, by individuals being able to make a modest down payment for

[ Page 708 ]

land, which would help those of low income in British Columbia own their own land on which to construct their home.

The alienation of land for residential purposes will be contingent upon a habitable dwelling being constructed thereon within a specified period of time. This facilitates and promotes private home ownership in British Columbia.

The member talked about the availability of this. There are expectations out there; I recognize that. We expect to meet the need for Crown land that has been expressed in British Columbia — the need, not the speculative opportunities which some people might suggest — and to aid and to assist individuals who want to own their own home on their own land.

The member makes reference to a triple-leaked memo. It was leaked to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk); he got the first leak. Then it was leaked in here by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), after having been leaked from the first member for Vancouver Centre as a great revelation of government policy. That memo, my friend, was merely an exchange of ideas between two civil servants. That intergovernmental memo was not government policy. It was a recommendation; it was an idea being put forward.

MR. LAUK: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you just look at the document you'll find out that it's not government policy.

MR, LAUK: They would go to all that trouble without your knowledge? Nonsense!

HON. MR. CHABOT: That member for Vancouver Centre gets very agitated because he's been caught leaking and making erroneous statements about that particular intergovernmental memo.

MR. LAUK: You denied it existed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference.... This bill will make it possible for British Columbians to own their own land. That's a great difference.

The second member for Victoria suggests that the New Democratic Party supports that concept. That's a bunch of nonsense. I've heard repeatedly, while they were government over here, that they were opposed to the private ownership of land, that land should be leased to individuals rather than privately owned. That's where we differ — this party versus that party. We believe in private ownership, and they believe in the people being tenants of the state.

It gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the minister attributes remarks to all members of the opposite side of the House which are not true. I wish he would become a responsible member of this House, and I wish he would become a responsible minister. I know that is asking rather a lot, but that would be something desirable in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I put the question, I think all members are aware that each member taking his place and making statements in this House accepts the responsibility for the veracity of those statements. I think also, hon. members, that to try to direct the attention of the House to the veracity or otherwise of statements made during second reading is to abuse the rules, and to take an opportunity to make a second speech in the House. I think that this should be resisted in this House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the record clear that I and the party I represent have never stated in this House that we oppose the private ownership of land. I want to correct the minister's erroneous statement in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Will the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke please come to order.

The question is second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Land Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF LANDS,
PARKS AND HOUSING ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm going to lower my voice because they take exception to my raising my voice.

AN HON. MEMBER: We just want you to tell the truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd have those remarks by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) withdrawn. They suggest that I wasn't telling the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, charges imputing statements of untruth to other members of the House are not permitted in the House. I ask, first of all, the second member for Victoria to please withdraw the statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot interrupt in the middle of a point of order. The hon. member knows this. We are now addressing the first part of the point of order, and we're asking the second member for Victoria to please withdraw the statement.

MR. HANSON: The minister did not tell the truth; the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: We're not debating the issue, hon. member. I just ask the hon. member to withdraw.

[ Page 709 ]

MR. KING: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot interrupt a point of order in progress.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we are in the middle of a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. There has been a request for a withdrawal of a statement that says the minister is not telling the truth.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We can settle the issue by having the hon. member simply withdraw. Please withdraw, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I said he should tell the truth. He stated an untruth about the position of our party on the private ownership of land.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate that the man is referring to is previous to a question already placed in this House and cannot be brought into the debate on this particular bill. Therefore I would ask the hon. members to please observe the rules of the House and orderly debate, and I would ask the hon. member whether or not he imputed any wrongdoing to the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. HANSON: He dropped in my estimation, but I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

MR. KING: On a point of order, the minister sat there and hollered across the floor, "Tell the truth! Tell the truth!" repeatedly during the same debate, and I ask him to withdraw statements which he, himself, apparently takes exception to when they are directed at him.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we'll look after that matter immediately after the one that we've settled.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre: did the hon. member impute any motive of wrongdoing to the minister?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the minister should tell the truth and that this side of the House wanted him to tell the truth. Surely that's an honourable motivation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We desire that every hon. member speak the truth in this House, and I'm sure so does he.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the first member for Vancouver Centre whether or not he has imputed any wrongdoing to the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. LAUK: I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, the House is satisfied.

I would ask the hon. the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing whether he has imputed any wrongdoing to any other member of this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if I have, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. And now to the debate on Bill 17.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, 1979.

The Act provides for the organization of this ministry and incorporates provisions formerly made through the Housing Act, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act and other relevant statutes. A major purpose of the ministry is to provide for the maintenance and development of a quality system of parks and for access to the abundant outdoor recreational opportunities our province provides. This Act is the expression and statute of this purpose and includes a provision whereby safety standards may be introduced by regulations to secure the safety of outdoor recreation.

The former Housing Fund has been renamed the "Crown Land Fund." and authority for the use of the fund in support of capital expenditures throughout the ministry is provided, whereas in the Housing Act the fund was limited to residential purposes. The Housing Fund had its origins as a means of financing housing projects, but it has been used exclusively during the last few years to finance land development. Allow me to illustrate this, Mr. Speaker: through section 215(a) of the Municipal Act, major loans have been made from the Housing Fund to municipalities to provide for the servicing of private residential land, the loan being repaid by developers or builders at the time municipal permits are issued.

Surrey has authorized to borrowers, as an example, $8 million; Richmond, $4 million; Whistler, $600,000. Major loans have also been made to municipalities to allow them to develop and service Crown land for residential purposes, the loans being repaid from the proceeds of lot sales and the value of the land being divided on an equal basis between the Crown and the municipality.

Finally, the fund has provided the ministry with the capacity to directly service Crown land, as in the Pine Creek subdivision in Atlin, and sell the lots to local purchasers for 10 percent down on the condition that they build on the lot within a one-year period. This condition is designed to prevent speculation on Crown lands. This successful pattern of Crown land development through the Housing Fund is now, through this ministry Act, to be expanded so that Crown land can be developed and service provided for the full range of uses — residential, commercial, recreational and agricultural. Industrial uses will be developed through the British Columbia Development Corporation. Crown land will be made available to the corporation, and all industrial uses will be developed through the corporation.

[ Page 710 ]

Crown land is for the use of the people of British Columbia today and tomorrow. I see every advantage in the government having an active role in making Crown land available for sale in a planned and selective manner. The Crown still owns 94 percent of the land area of the province and, although much of this land is already in use as in our extensive forest and rangelands or, alternatively, is rocky and bare, I see much scope to make more available to purchase. The recent offering of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation shares show that British Columbia's citizens want to participate in the development of the province. The Crown Land Fund will serve the same aspirations by assisting my ministry to develop Crown lands for sale. The ministry Act gives my ministry the authority it needs to plan for Crown land, to develop Crown land and to sell Crown land in the most efficient manner possible.

Through the development of Crown land, the whole province benefits. The buyer benefits because he receives land in a freehold state, as both an asset for his use and an investment in the future. The province benefits because the proceeds of the sale are credited to the Crown Land Fund and can finance further development, The people benefit because it is in everybody's interest that prosperity and employment be increased in British Columbia. This Act and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act, together with the accompanying changes in the Land Act, provide my ministry with the legislation that is needed to make Crown land more available for our prosperity and for our future as British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading.

MR. GABELMANN: I wish we had an opportunity in this House to have the person who writes his speeches in the seat which the minister occupies. Whenever he reads his speeches, he appears to be a very dignified and very responsible member of the House. Whenever he goes off on his own he is a very undignified and very irresponsible member of this House, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, undignified? Shocking! Unbelievable! A shocking statement. I'm offended.

MR. GABELMANN: One of the reasons this Legislature is renowned across this country for a very low level of behaviour and a very low level of debate is because we have the kinds of speeches that were made on the close of second reading of the previous bill. I, for one, don't appreciate that kind of debate on law-making, which is a very responsible and important part of our job.

Bill 17 is a bill which the official opposition intends to oppose, Mr. Speaker. Our judgment is that when the Premier was reorganizing his cabinet, he had a few things left over which he wasn't much interested in. He then lumped them together and gave them to one of the members he wasn't much interested in. We ended up with the member for Columbia River having responsibility for three disparate areas of government responsibility.

When the minister responsible for Lands, Parks and Housing attempts in this bill to make, a case for the amalgamation of those areas of responsibility, I think he fails in making that case.

We intend to oppose the bill for one primary reason and a number of lesser ones. The primary reason is that we believe the housing situation in this province is one that should have the undivided attention of a minister fully responsible for housing. What we have, in fact, is a ministry that has housing as one of its lesser responsibilities and one of its lesser priorities. Clearly, in listening to the minister making his introductory comments in the second reading, his emphasis is on getting rid of Crown land — getting rid of land that we all own so that more and more of his friends in the private sector can have it.

I am very much in favour, as are all members of this House, of making land available to people who intend to develop rural subdivisions outside of municipalities in areas that are often under tree-farm licences. I favour making it possible for them to get into those kinds of rural subdivisions and perhaps two-acre parcels or whatever is appropriate in that particular area. If that were the intention of the minister and his ministry — to make housing available to those people who want to develop their own property rather than having developers develop the property — then we would have more reason to support the bill and the minister. The record doesn't show that this is the direction that the Social Credit Party is taking, and my dealings with the minister over the years don't lend any confidence on my part that he intends to make housing a primary responsibility of his ministry.

I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) described the minister as the "Minister of Leftovers." In many ways that is an accurate description of his responsibility. If we have to mix and merge some ministries, and I admit that's the case in some instances, let's put housing with something which is more appropriate. Housing is far more appropriate with municipal affairs — where the people live and where the people have housing needs — than it is with Crown lands or parks, where the people don't live and will not be able to live in great numbers. The problem for most people who have housing needs in this province is not a problem of land. It's a problem of income. The problem relates to that probably one-third of our society who do not have the level of income required to meet housing needs in this province. They won't be affected by the opening up of 800 blocks in the Peace River country.

The problem relates to a lack, on the part of this government, of any will or intention to massively support public and cooperative housing — the so-called third sector of housing. Because of the obvious intention on the part of the government, and the minister, to downgrade the need for housing in this province, we intend to oppose the establishment of the ministry as designed in this bill.

I don't think I will say very much more than that, Mr. Speaker. The time for more extensive debate on some of these sections is in second reading. I am particularly distressed at the wide powers the minister has in some of the sections. I am giving notice right now that section 9 is the section which we intend to deal with in committee. The kind of absolute and widespread powers given to that particular minister scare some of us to death.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very straightforward, easy-to-understand bill. It could very easily have seen the end of second reading after the last member's speech. But the minister's deportment, behaviour and everything else tells me that there's no possible way that one can support a bill that he places before this House, particularly with that kind of deportment.

[ Page 711 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'I name a few situations. He reads the lying ads that his party had in the paper during the last election.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. We must clarify, I think, for the House, because there seems to be some confusion, the three kinds of debate that we have in this House. There is the debate in Committee of Supply, when a minister, his administration and his deportment, if necessary, are open for debate. It seems, as I have listened to debate today, that it may have been confused with the kind of debate which is orderly in second reading.

I read from page 485 of Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition: "Debate in second reading on the stages of a bill should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to a criticism of administration." That provides; then, for a second kind of debate: debate in principle on a bill.

Then there is the third kind of debate, which is debate in committee, when severe scrutiny can be given to a bill, section by section. Even in that debate a criticism of a person is not in order.

I would ask hon. members to reflect on that for a few moments and guide their debate in the light of the authorities.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I understand. This is a particularly peculiar bill in terms of what it sets out to do. It sets out to name the minister's responsibilities. This is the Act setting up a minister's total responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, that minister is the minister now carrying the bill in the House. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves a few questions about him or other members of his party, dealing with Crown land, dealing with other areas, and being given powers that make him responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the direction of the ministry, et cetera. We have to look at the person under this circumstance and say to ourselves: "How does he fit the role?"

He is the person who is going to be carrying the responsibility for the next while. Just a few moments ago he got up in the House, and he could have been reading an ad from the last campaign. That ad, Mr. Speaker, lied. That ad said that the NDP doesn't believe in private ownership of land. It was the most despicable kind of behaviour of any political party that I can imagine. That minister, reading that kind of material, makes that kind of suggestion in this House.

This is the kind of debate that puts one in a position where one can't help but lose one's temper. I suggest that this Mickey Mouse portfolio, if it weren't for the fact that some of the areas were so important, could be left alone. It could be said: "Well, I guess you can take a portfolio like this, look around for a member that needs a portfolio, because of his geographical location or something like that, to keep that particular area in government, and place that member in that position. "

There are aspects of this bill, potpourri that it is, that should certainly be in other areas of jurisdiction. The proposed Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing surprises all of us. He surprises us particularly with the way that he introduced this bill. He came in and indicated very clearly, having yielded to some relatively copious notes, exactly what the bill sets out and so on in terms that one could almost understand. Then one knows, in his heart of hearts, that when he closes debate he's going to get up, knowing that he gets the last word, and rip away again.

Mr. Speaker that's the kind of situation that gets us nowhere — absolutely nowhere at all. Let's take a look at some of the areas of this bill.

In the first place, we're moving from the Municipal Affairs ministry; we're moving some of those responsibilities to this new ministry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll order what you deserve.

MR. COCKE: Order what? Would you like to order something? All you have to do is just send one of the Pages downstairs to the restaurant.

The Attorney-General is a bit twitchy today. I don't blame him. He should tell his colleague, when he's sitting there, to think before he talks. Making those kinds of irresponsible charges is just not good enough for a minister of the Crown.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the minister is called upon to make a yearly report. We'I discuss that in committee. But we wonder whether or not this minister will make the kind of yearly report that is going to clearly enunciate what's been going on, if he takes part in it. We trust he won't have any part in the preparation of that report so, therefore, we can read it with a good deal of confidence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you read it? I tabled it last week.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I know.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this particular bill leads us to believe that the government didn't quite know what to do with parts and parcels of its responsibility, that they put them together despite the fact that they don't really belong together. It indicates to us there's a situation being developed for a particular minister of the Crown for whom they could find nothing else to do. He's tried many areas, failed in all and here we go again.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place rather unexpectedly, but I cannot allow the member for New Westminster to get away with a statement he made that his party is in favor of the private ownership of land. There couldn't be anything further from the truth in that respect, because occasionally they will obliquely deny the premise but always, entirely, and without question, when it comes down to the final word, they are socialists — and socialists are opposed to the private ownership of land.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense, George. Tell the truth.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It made itself manifest in many cases. It made itself manifest in one little way during their regime of 1972 to 1975, in which any person....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 712 ]

MR. COCKE: What happened?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Very simply, what happened was that if a senior citizen was unable to pay taxes.... They didn't worry about it. Just sign the book, and when it's all over, the land will revert to the Crown. That's a little way.

Now I'll tell you about a bigger way. What about the Waffle Manifesto, which six ministers of the previous government were a party to? The Leader of the Opposition was the leading name and he had the effrontery to tell this House, and to tell others: "I put my name on that manifesto so it could get on the floor."

May I ask him now: did it take six signatures to get on the floor? And I ask this question — that manifesto was clearly opposed to the private ownership of land. Let us label them with that. Let them never forget it. Let them understand that socialism is opposed to private ownership of land. There's no other way it can be accepted; they can deny it, but the facts speak for themselves. But let us go under our true colours. Let them say: "Yes, we are opposed to it. But we're opposed to it for such and such a reason." They would be more respected for it. But to waffle around on the basis of, "Oh, no, we believe in it," when they do not.... Because you cannot be a socialist and believe in the private ownership of land.

MR. KING: I had not intended to enter this debate, but when I hear that kind of unacceptable and false claptrap being spewed forth in this House, I can't let it go unchallenged.

Mr. Speaker, reference has been made once again to the Waffle Manifesto. I want to tell the House, once and for all, if they are prepared to listen, that particular manifesto was a resolution brought to a national NDP convention, where it was roundly defeated, and the sponsors of that resolution ultimately left our party.

Mr. Speaker, for the gentleman to put that forward as representing NDP policy is an insult to the truth. It's an insult to the truth, and it would be just as appropriate for me to say that the resolution being brought before, a provincial Social Credit convention by a group advocating, of all things, circumcision for sexual offenders was indeed Social Credit policy. That was a defeated resolution and it's about in the same category that the member is trying to ascribe to our party and our policy.

I want to say to those inarticulate Socreds over there that we on this side of the House have a proud history and tradition of respecting and representing individual rights and freedoms in this nation; we have a proud history of doing that. We have articulate spokesmen who can explain our policies and our programs without, like people on that side of the House in their most idiotic way, going around this province and insulting the sensitivities of people by bringing forward that kind of idiotic and poisonous nonsense. That's precisely what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate on ownership undoubtedly is in order, but a full debate, I think, on the Waffle Manifesto would not be in order under this bill.

MR. LAUK: Well, it might be a worthwhile to debate that, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate your directions. I wonder if the hon. minister subscribes to some of the views expressed in the resolutions which from time to time over the past two or three decades appeared at conventions of the Social Credit Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is exactly the kind of debate we were trying to curtail to bring the debate back into order under the bill.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't going to refer to circumcision or any of the other resolutions by BOLT or anything like that. Far be it from me to stray from the principle of this bill to mention things like BOLT and the various sections that have come before the Social Credit convention.

What disappoints me about the member for Dewdney is a very fundamental thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill also has no reference to the member for Dewdney. The principle of the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, please be patient. You see, I'm just a little fellow and I have difficulty with the English language. I need time to formulate my thoughts. I'm struggling with every effort to stick to the principle of this bill. It's not as easy for some of us to cope with the English language as it is for the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). He can talk. I've heard him out in the corridor. He talks and talks and talks, and the press go away shaking their heads. They come back and ask the same question the next day, and he talks and he talks and he talks, and the press go away again shaking their heads. He's an amazing talker.

With respect to this bill and the comments made by the member for Dewdney on the private ownership of land, it's important that we realize exactly where the Social Credit Party stands. The laws they have passed with respect to land, with respect to taxation, have favoured 50 or 60 wealthy families in this province. The laws they have passed over the past three and a half or four years have favoured the privileged few.

One of the great things they like to do during election campaigns and sometimes in this Legislature is to wave a red flag around. They talk about government control. They use fear. They use half-truths. The minister over there from Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland).... I remember reading a letter from him where he called the NDP "sociocommunists. " This pseudo-intellectual over there, who's only real attribute is his receding hairline....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't think any of these backbenchers can get a subject and predicate within striking distance of one another.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I challenge you all to an IQ test between each other. Leave me out of it.

I'd like to point out that every once in a while, members like the member for Dewdney take great pleasure in standing up and misrepresenting the facts. They love it. They know it's cheap politics; they know it's good rhetoric; they know it's like fanning the flames of fear. They tried it during the last election, and it didn't work. They started

[ Page 713 ]

doing that. Their Premier got up and called us national socialists. The Minister of Forests called us socio-communists. Somebody else called us godless Marxists, and so on. The name-calling has gone on for 25 years in this province and it hasn't stopped. But one thing has changed: it's not working any more. The people are too smart for your kind of low-level, guttersnipe politics; they're not buying it any more.

To the bill: I don't know why a gentleman of the stature and personality of the member for Dewdney would stand up and dabble in that kind of low-level politics. He's one of the politest people I have ever met. After having met the hon. member for Dewdney, I often wondered why he was so constantly polite; it's because it's absolutely free. The member for Dewdney is a car dealer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Please bring the debate back into the scope of the bill.

MR. LAUK: He owns a lot of land, and one of the reasons he is able to do so, Mr. Speaker, is because he runs a car dealership. I cannot think of anything more self-righteous than talking about the private ownership of land and saying that this party is against it, and his party is for it, in the face of the legislative program of this bankrupt government which passes laws for a few families in this province. Somebody should be ashamed. You people do not belong to those 40 or 50 families who control the wealth of this province. Yet you are marching, like their soldiers, into this chamber — voting for them every step of the way. The party of privilege, the party of wealth, the party of the fat cats, Mr. Speaker; they have never thought about passing a law for ordinary people. They have never thought about protecting ordinary people, and they have the nerve to stand up in this House and say that we're against the private ownership of land. We're against the private ownership of land in the hands of 40 or 50 families, Mr. Speaker, but not in the hands of ordinary people. We did more during our term of government for ordinary homeowners than any other government in the history of this province.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs for the NDP administration, and other cabinet ministers, passed laws protecting ordinary working families, enabling them to get housing. We were the first province in Canada to set up a department of housing, Mr. Speaker. We set up a department of housing to recognize the needs, not of those 40 or 50 wealthy families that now don't have to pay their estate taxes because of this government of the rich, but for those hundreds and of thousands of families that.... Oh, you think it's funny, Mr. Member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). No, you haven't got a sore eye; but what's really sore about you is about the same size as your eye — your brain. [Laughter.]

I'I tell you something, Mr. Speaker, it is no laughing matter to me that since 1975 that tremendous program of providing housing for ordinary working people has been scuttled and ripped apart by that government over there. They're against the private ownership of land, they shout over to us. They are against the private ownership of land for ordinary people. They want to hand it to the real estate speculators. They want to pay off their campaign contributors. They want to hand over Crown land to real estate speculators, and that is what this proposal is all about. You watch them, Mr. Speaker; I charge everybody to watch this government. They are not inclined toward straightforward ways for the people of this province; it is foreign to them. They are a government of privilege; they are a government that is anti-democratic; they are a backroom government, a smoke filled room government. They always pay off favours. They are for jobs for the boys, the old-boy network; and the people of this province are sick to death of them.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It has been a fairly agitated debate, for some unknown reason.

I want to make a few remarks. Nobody discussed, really, the principle of the bill. All they did was heap abuse on my ministry and the amalgamation of Lands, Parks and Housing. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested it is a Mickey Mouse portfolio. If it is a Mickey Mouse portfolio, I want to tell him what some of the things a Mickey Mouse portfolio does. It provides grants and assistance for the housing of seniors in British Columbia; it provides assistance for housing for those of low income in British Columbia. If that is Mickey Mouse, fine — I'll accept that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Less need? It's quite obvious. You just look at the surveys and find out the need for housing as it relates to last year.

They suggest, Mr. Speaker, the administration of more than 14 million acres of parkland in this province is Mickey Mouse. I don't agree with those people. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) says the ministry is a leftover. I suggest there is a close relationship, a logical union, between Lands, Parks and Housing. Parks has a very close relationship with land. In case you don't know it; housing has a great association with land. In case you don't know it. I think the union that has taken place between these three portions of other ministries is a logical one, a reasonable one, and one which with the close association will work.

The member for North Island, after getting up in a pompous and pious way, suggesting that he was very offended at statements that I had made, went on to attack the minister and ridicule his ministry. That was the substance of his response to second reading of this bill. It was to belittle the minister, which is always a great game. You belittle the minister and you become a great hero over in the NDP ranks.

But then he went on to say that they're going to oppose the bill. I want to tell you it's quite obvious to me he hasn't read the bill, because the prime objective of making Crown land available in this province is for making housing available to British Columbians so those of low income can own. We're going to make land available at reasonable terms, and it's going to be possible for an individual to acquire land with 10 percent down. If that's want you want to oppose, Mr. Member, you can go ahead and oppose it.

He suggests that making 800 acres available in the northeastern comer of the province will do nothing for assisting British Columbians as far as housing is concerned.

[ Page 714 ]

I have never at any time suggested there's going to be 800 individual lots released in the Peace River part of the province. I suggested that they're going to be released, made available as soon as possible and scattered throughout British Columbia. We'I move on from there as we're able to develop this land and make it available to meet the needs of British Columbians for housing. We'll press on with the job, and this bill makes it possible for us to do so.

The members across the way got very agitated this afternoon. I was rather surprised they would become so agitated about the statement that I had made that they don't believe in the private ownership of land. I said that's where our political differences are. We believe in the private ownership of land and the socialists don't, Mr. Speaker.

Based on that, many of those members over there made some outrageous statements to camouflage some previous statements they had made. Those statements weren't made at cocktail parties. They weren't made at secret meetings, in telephone booths or in NDP caucuses. They were public statements made by that band over there, Mr. Speaker.

I'I just make reference to some of these, Mr. Speaker. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had something to say in the Homemakers magazine of May 19, 1974, page 12. The article, "Black and Female" by Carol Allen, quoted Rosemary Brown as saying: "I don't believe in the private ownership of land. It's a myth that we own everything." That's one of her statements.

There is also one of the former executive assistants. In November 1973, an editorial in the Vancouver Province called: "Questions About Private Ownership" — I'm not going to read the full article — said: "Reports from Prince George that Agriculture minister Dave Stupich's executive assistant was booed when he told an audience of ranchers that no one should have the right to own land in British Columbia demand some clarification." Clarification wasn't forthcoming. Now they have the audacity to stand in here and suggest that they never made any statement about the private ownership of land versus the state ownership, which, they strongly support.

I would like to also quote another member of that illustrious party, the once-famous CCF and now the New Democratic Party, and their attitude regarding land. On September 24, 1973, one of their members, Gabelmann, spoke in the Legislature, this very chamber. He was sitting in that corner down there on September 24, 1973, and had this to say. I challenge you to deny this statement, like you're denying the statements that I attributed to you. He said:

"Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God or whoever we believe gave it to us and so was land. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's have one person speaking at a time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll repeat that statement.

"It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned. I believe it is going to take us decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this society. And I have it too, that we all think we have to own a chunk of land. Until we own that chunk of land and until we own a house we've actually not made it. We have got to reverse that philosophy."

That's not me speaking; that's the member for North Island in 1973.

"I'm not suggesting this government will have the time to be able to do that; I think it's a thing that has to happen throughout North America over a great many years. But I think that it's important that people begin to talk about the fact that there is no real difference between land and air, and we think it absurd and insane if air were owned privately. I think it's the same situation with land."

Mr. Speaker, I challenge you to challenge that statement made by one of their members — the member for North Island. That's his philosophy, and that's the philosophy of that party. You can try to deny it as long as you want, but the truth will find you out.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 17, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

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

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: When there is debate in second reading, Mr. Chairman, as always, this little opposition is greatly

[ Page 715 ]

outnumbered by that steamroller government. The minister opens debate and closes debate. He made a couple of misstatements, inadvertently, of course, because we all know his expertise is the sexing of whales and has little to do with the reading of statutes. But he suggested that section 1 was not as I said it could be interpreted. He suggested it was impossible to use the amendment to the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act to guarantee the indebtedness of independent schools; it's prevented by regulation, he says. Well, I wish he would clear the formaldehyde from his inner ears and listen more carefully to opposition arguments, because we're not raising them to hear ourselves talk. We're trying to prevent you from committing further blunders at the taxpayers' expense. That's our job: to make sure your sloppy draftsmanship isn't repeated so often that the Minister of Finance goes broke paying for it.

The amendments are clear. The amendment to the capital financing, et cetera, Act is clear. It says it will add the phrase "or a designated educational institution to the authority" after "authority" in section 8(l). Well, let's go to the statute, and we'll read it.

Section 8(l), Mr. Chairman, as you well know, says: "The Crown may, on such terms as the Lieutenant Governor-in- Council approves, guarantee (a) the payment of principle and interest, and (b) the performance of any obligation for the payment of money, of the notes, bonds, debentures and other securities issued by the authority."

The amendment would add: "or a designated educational institution to the authority."

Now in subsection (3) it adds: "or a designated educational institution" after "authority."

In subsection (3) of the same Act: "The guarantee, in such form and manner as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approves, may be endorsed on the notes, bonds," et cetera, et cetera, "and the signature of a person authorized to sign the guarantee may be produced," et cetera. This means that any designated educational institution will have the right to a government guarantee by order-in-council. We said this. He said it was against the regulations. Well, a cabinet can change the regulations; you don't need to come back to the Legislature.

My argument was: you don't go sneaking this past the Legislature and say: "Oh, well, we'll take care of it in cabinet. We've got you protected. Don't worry about it." I may believe the minister, because he's an honourable gentleman. But I don't know how long he's going to be in that present post. Rumour has it that he's going to be moving closer down this aisle fairly soon. And before he reaches that mid-life crisis, I want to bring to his attention that another Minister of Education may be in his chair — you know that — who may not be an honourable gentleman, and who may without further consultation with the Legislature pass an order-in-council enabling the capital financing or the guarantee of indebtedness to independent schools by cabinet order.

I refer again to that section which says: "...may guarantee the performance of any obligation for the payment of money by the authority or by an educational institution designated by the regulations as an institution." The only reference in the Act about regulations designating educational institutions is tautological. It says: "Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may designate educational institutions as institutions to which this Act may apply." In other words, the government can say what is a designated institution — period! There's nothing to restrict the government from saying that St. George's or some senior secondary or some post-secondary private institution like Trinity, or something like that, can be designated under this statute and be entitled therefore by the decision of the cabinet to have their entire capital cost indebtedness guaranteed by the public purse.

Is the minister listening? The minister's back is turned around. I'm not sure that he can hear. His ears are pointing towards the wall. I'm not sure the sound waves.... Oh, there he is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the member will relate this to the section.

MR. LAUK: I think that section 1 certainly can be read in that way. I have spoken to various officials in the civil service who agree that it can be read in that way, and that such an open interpretation should be protected. Under section 1, will the minister indicate to the committee whether it's the government's policy to guarantee capital indebtedness of private schools?

Secondly, if it is not the government's policy, does he propose to withdraw section 1 and revise it to prevent the possibility from occurring?

HON. MR. McGEER: To both questions, the answer is no. I know it's a burden on the member to attend the House, particularly after he has given a speech. Presumably he needs to go out and give it again in the corridor. If he had been here when we were discussing this bill originally, he would have had the explanation he required. I suppose we are obliged to repeat the arguments to satisfy the member now that he deigns to attend the House.

The matter that the member is concerned about, of course, is one which exists irrespective of this particular amendment. All the amendment does is to permit the authorities designated under the Act — they are public post-secondary institutions, for whom the Act was created and which are specified in the regulations which exist.

I explained to the members of the House, as I explain now, that this Act was introduced in 1976, prior to the time when the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act was introduced. where we had to create a vehicle for capital borrowing for those new post-secondary public institutions which have been created since that time.

The member is obviously against those new institutes which were created. The member is against the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority being used....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind the minister we are in committee stage. If the minister expands the scope of debate, the Chair will have no....

HON. MR. McGEER: But he has asked, Mr. Chairman, for me to withdraw this particular section. To withdraw the section would prevent our public post-secondary institutions from borrowing. That's the whole problem.

Mr. Chairman, we don't need to rewrite the section. It explains very clearly what the intent is. The regulations very clearly rule out independent schools, We have explained that the policy of the government in the past has

[ Page 716 ]

been not to fund the capital of independent schools. It is not the policy now; it will not be the policy in the future.

I just wish that the members could have delivered their opinions on independent schools and voted one way or another on that particular bill on second reading, instead of still bringing it into every single educational amendment or bill that is introduced in the House and debating endlessly something which required debate on one occasion when this party turned tail and ran from the House.

I know they're trying to redeem themselves for that irresponsible and uncalled-for and shameful act of responsibility in the House but it cannot be done by attempting to punish our public institutions. This amendment is very clearly worded. Its intent is most worthy. It requires no amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this section pass.

MR. LAUK: I would prefer that the minister were less moved by the emotion of his debate and would look carefully at what I am saying. He says it's in the regulations. For the benefit of some of the new members — particularly the lawyers who won't know this — regulations are not passed in this chamber. Isn't that right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't look to the Chair for guidance.

MR. LAUK: Even people from Ottawa know that. It should be generally understood: regulations are in the form of orders-in-council.

Now the press gallery, who are there in thunderous array, and who you can all see there, know that they have no access to the cabinet room when these regulations are passed. Okay? That's what I said. I said that if you're going to make amendments to the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Amendment Act, you do it in this chamber, not in a smoke-filled room with the doors closed and the greenies outside protecting the press gallery or preventing the press gallery or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition from hearing the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I'm relieved that it's only taken three days for the minister to stand up and say it. All it took him was three days of questioning to stand up and say it is not the policy of the government to guarantee the indebtedness of independent schools through this statute. I am relieved to hear the minister say that. However, the amendments that are proposed in section 1 will enable him or any other minister to do it. So what I am suggesting to you is that you change the wording of your amendment — not withdraw it, because heaven knows we created these colleges and institutions. We're not opposed to them. The NDP administration created them after 20 years of neglect by the Social Credit government that turned their back on post-secondary education. They turned their back.

You know how I know they turned their back on education for 20 years? Because I was reading the Minister of Education's speeches in those days. His speeches, Mr. Chairman, were made in those lean years for education when the present, current and not-so-long-lasting Minister of Education was a member of the Liberal Party.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who was a member of the Liberal Party?

MR. LAUK: The present, current and not-so-long lasting Minister of Education.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He was the leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. LAUK: That's correct. This was eons ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could relate this to section 1, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: Eons ago, Mr. Chairman, at a time even the minister wishes were prehistoric.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on section 1 of this bill, hon. member. Perhaps you could relate this to the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom of Education League.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your help in giving my speech.

The Minister of Education refuses, stubbornly, to accept the logical and legal interpretation of these proposed amendments. Let's say that it's not the independent schools that will get capital finance. Because under the legislation that I've read to you.... I'I read it again. Maybe the member for Prince George, who has had a great number of years in legal practice, can assist the minister. Can you come over and sit beside him and read the Act to him and explain what the words mean? Because it says: "...authority means the corporation established under section 2: designated educational institution means (i) a university operating under the Universities Act" — no problem; " (ii) the British Columbia Institute of Technology" — salutary. Then: "(iii) an educational institution designated by the regulations as an institution to which this Act applies." Section 11: "Without restricting the generality of subsection (1) the regulations may (a) designate educational institutions as institutions to which this Act applies." Section I says: "...the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations...."

All right, I've told you what regulations are. Now guess what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is. It's not the Legislature, is it? You know that, Mr. Member. You've been here before, haven't you. You know that. It's the cabinet. The public does not have access to the cabinet. They make these decisions.

So as we pass this section, the cabinet can meet, repeal the regulations which prohibit guaranteeing indebtedness to other than post-secondary public institutions, and pass another order-in-council guaranteeing — let's say designating — as an educational institution the local Social Credit "Freedom of Information League." Let's say they did that. They wouldn't get much public support for it, but let's say they did — as an educational institution designated by regulation. So they designate as an educational institution the Social Credit "Freedom of Information League."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They'd change the name, certainly. Then they'd immediately build a 50-storey tower in downtown Vancouver, and the capital financing would be guaranteed under this statute by the cabinet.

[ Page 717 ]

The minister is really saying that age-old thing that was made famous by Richard Milhouse Nixon: "Trust Me. You don't need to debate anything in the Legislature involving the taxpayers' money; we can do it behind closed doors much better than you can anyway."

We're opposed to section 1, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the minister should come clean with the public. Stop pretending. This amendment is important. You should rephrase it. You've stated that your policy was not to provide capital financing guarantees for independent schools. Come clean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the minister, perhaps I could take a moment of the committee's time to read from Sir Erskine May, where it deals with allegations against members. Although this has been canvassed before, I shall read it again. "Good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary language, and parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions or the conduct of his opponents in debate."

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, thank you for that reminder. I might say that you, sir, have been very indulgent in entertaining the debate and points raised by my good friend opposite, because during the entire debate — and I suppose it is not uncharacteristic — he has been out of order. The complaint which he raises, one that is not a valid complaint — but given his determination to deal with it — has its redress not in this section, which amends section 8 of the Act, but in a bill we passed in 1976, section 1. Therefore if the member feels very strongly about the regulations, he could address his attention to section 1 of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act. If he reads section 1 of that Act, then that is the section to which he has addressed his debate. But this bill, Mr. Chairman, section 1, does not amend section 1 of that Act. It amends an entirely different section — section 8. So his debate has been completely irrelevant to this section.

It is not the first time the member has been irrelevant, and I'm certain it's not the last. If the member wishes, he's quite free to introduce his own legislation dealing with section 1 of that Act. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will not entertain any further debate on section 1 of another bill, but only entertain debate relevant to section 1 of this bill, which deals with an amendment to section 8 of the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act.

I want to assure the members for the umpteenth time with respect to the policy on capital financing of independent schools. It has not been the policy of the government in the past; it is not the policy now, nor will it be the policy in the future. Mr. Chairman, had the member attended the House for just a few minutes two years ago when this bill was debated, or when the independent schools Act was debated in second reading, he would have grasped that policy because it was clearly stated at that time. Of course the NDP ran from the House on that occasion, and so they missed what was being said. They only would have learned by reading Hansard, again an exercise which, I presume, is rarely indulged in by that member. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that had he bothered to attend the House when this bill was debated in second reading after he himself had delivered his own address, he would have had an answer to that question. But no, Mr. Chairman, we're doomed to come in here and repeat it again and again and again for that particular member who has such difficulty grasping simple principles and simple policy.

His memory, of course, is short. He has difficulty recalling that during the election campaign he wrote a letter, which was widely distributed, guaranteeing support of independent schools. Indeed he came into the House and suggested that Gary Lauk had not written such a letter. Well, we had a letter from Gary Lauk which we attempted to table in the House to refresh his memory, but his colleagues opposite, are't willing to have that kind of evidence presented to the House.

MR. LAUK: Table it now.

HON. MR. McGEER: Presumably they refreshed the member's memory after the House adjourned. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we're filling any useful purpose repeating this for the benefit of the member. I can only urge his colleagues to help him out in this respect.

MR. LAUK: We have a lot of good fun, we exchange pleasantries, but I'm becoming very, very concerned. I don't think the minister knows what I'm saying, and I am serious about the interpretation of these sections. There is a serious problem the minister has missed — and I think that perhaps legislative counsel will be able to help. If you want to recess or something. I'm quite serious when I say that the minister, by his remarks, does not understand the point I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point has been very well canvassed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that astounding! It seems the minister himself has escaped the effects of the core curriculum, because the amendments are clear. Yes, it is to section 8, and I read section 8. What the amendment to section 8 says is that the government will now be allowed not only to guarantee the indebtedness of authorities — and those have been described — but also to guarantee the indebtedness of designated educational institutions. I only turned to section 1 to find out what a "designated education institution" is — that's not irrelevant to this debate — and I found out that it is any educational institution designated as such by the cabinet. Is it not fair to look at that section and find out what happens? Can the minister do that then? Can he go from section 8, read it and go back to section 1, read that and then tell me what prevents the government from providing a guarantee of indebtedness for private institutions, other then those in the public education system? None, absolutely none.

I believe the minister when he says that it's not his policy now and it wasn't the policy in the past. But he cannot guarantee what the policy will be in the future. He has not got that power under the constitution. We cannot bind subsequent parliaments, and we cannot bind any government to policy other than by public opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dianne Hartwick.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. LAUK: Yes, the second member for Point Grey might indeed have been Dianne Hartwick. There are some who speculate that she would make an excellent Minister of Education. But I'm not one of those who wish to speculate, and I don't think any of us should speculate about how this new amendment will be applied by any cabinet. It should be brought before the Legislature. Will the minister redraft this section before he creates a large loophole through which you can drive a...whatever?

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. LAUK: We did canvass this in second reading, and I'm not going to get involved with the committee again. They seem intent on pressing on with this ill-advised section, which will enable independent schools to traffic in provincial government grants or the right to them. Again, this is a heavy responsibility. These Acts can be drafted in straightforward ways to prevent the trafficking in accreditation; but the minister — who seems to be unusually arrogant these days; it must be because we're sitting over the summer — will not listen to reason. Surely he doesn't want the accreditation described in the Independent Schools Support Act to take on its own economic value, to be traded like a taxi licence or a fishing boat licence. Is that what he wants? Because that's what he's creating. He can avoid that. I'm not going to raise the argument that we'd better watch out because the Moonies are going to buy St. George's. From what I hear, that would be an improvement.

In all seriousness why invite trouble? Why not draft your amendments so that they reflect a concern for the sort of situation that arose at the Marian high school in Vancouver. I understand that the Sisters at the Marian high school wanted to give up their ownership of the school as an authority, and that the new authority — already an authority, by the way, under the Independent Schools Support Act — take on their responsibilities. That's the sort of situation you are trying to cover. A much more simple way to do it, for heaven's sake.... Haven't you got anybody to advise you on how to draft an amendment over there? This sloppiness can't continue. You have a heavy responsibility when you make amendments to the Public Schools Act. You only open it up every once in a while — and these other Acts. Anyway, obviously you're not listening. You're just a member of an arrogant, steamroller government that steps on the toes of ordinary people and certainly ignores the legitimate contributions made by this little opposition.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the minister could explain why this amendment was brought in.

HON. MR. McGEER: The principal reason, Madam Member, is to eliminate doubt, from the legal point of view, as to precisely what the number would be. Some of these figures are occasionally subject to interpretation and argument, and it was felt that the simplest way to administer it was to have one set of figures that would be accepted as binding for legal purposes. That's the full purpose behind it.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister has stated that the average operating costs for pupils in districts are obviously open for interpretation — I gather that's what you're saying.

So instead of going by the most recently published average operating costs, the amendment now reads: "...as specified by the minister for the purpose of calculating grants for the school year." Here, again, we run into the same problem that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre was concerned about in the drafting of the legislation. The minister has assured us there's nothing behind this amendment, but the phraseology used appears to give the minister a considerable amount of laxity and flexibility in designating what the grant is going to be. Maybe I can be corrected on that, and I understand what your intent may have been in drafting this. But as it reads, how is the Legislature really going to know what you are going to base those operating grants upon?

HON. MR. McGEER: Madam Member, the general funds that are made available to independent schools are set in a global way at the time the Legislature sits. It only remains then for these to be apportioned per pupil in the fairest manner possible.

What we've attempted to do is compensate for the fact that some school districts have lower costs than other school districts. What we wanted to do was relate the subsidy to the independent school, which is 30 percent of the operating cost, not to some figure in Vancouver, if it's up north, but to the actual costs of that school district.

Now the difficulty that we face, just from a practical point of view, is that the operating costs per pupil vary from time to time in a given school year as data is accumulated and verified. It's to prevent misunderstandings that we have to have one officially designated list and say this is it and do it once a year for the purpose of the grant. There are provisional budgets and there are revised budgets and so forth, and then there are actual expenditures. While the variations are not large — as you well know, Madam Member, from your experience — they shift from time to time during a year. Sometimes you get firm figures from one district and they're not firm from another. So what you have to do at some time is to say: "Well, this is the final, official list." That's the intent of the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder, as this section does deal with the grants, if I could ask the minister, Mr. Chairman — within the purview of this discussion here today — if he has managed to set up some way, through his inspector of independent schools, of guaranteeing that those grants which are now being given to independent schools by the Social Credit government are being used for the purposes stated in the Independent Schools Support Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we've looked into that very carefully, and I have received a number of reports throughout the year from the inspector who, as the member knows, is on extremely experienced official of the Ministry of Education. By every report and by repeated questioning he has given me assurances that they are being used for the purposes of education and nothing else. So we're satisfied.

[ Page 719 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I think the minister is aware of why I'm bringing this up, because, as he recalls from the last session, we were expressing our concern about letters which had come into the hands of certain members and articles in the press. We were concerned that some of these funds were being tunnelled into capital financing and not used for operating expenses. My last question to the minister really is: did he have his ministry specifically check into this particular aspect? We've just had a great debate here in which you have assured us there will be no funds given for capital financing. So I want to know if you looked into any of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It really isn't appropriate to discuss that under this section. I have allowed a little bit of latitude here, but we don't want to get into a full-scale debate on that, because it's not relevant under this section. If the minister has a short reply....

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Where there has been the slightest suggestion, the school has been advised that if it does that, its licence will be lifted.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to delay matters on this section, although it's providing the minister with the kind of power that makes this side of the House nervous — the sort of wide-sweeping power that this minister likes to ascribe to himself. There should fairly soon be an avenue by which the opposition can have meetings — maybe through some select standing committee — with the inspector, because there are some real concerns involving grants. I don't know whether provincial grants are going to put a new roof on the church or whether they're going to operating costs. It's difficult for an inspector to find that out, I know, because it all goes into one waterbag in a parochial school situation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just give an undertaking to the members opposite. I think their request is a very reasonable one and I would be happy to try and arrange something that was agreeable to them whereby precisely this could be done.

MR. LAUK: With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could introduce a reference to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Prior to calling the question on this particular section, might I just remind all members, since we have had a few violations of the rules of our House today, about the reading of newspapers in the House. I am referring to section 423 of Sir Erskine May. I won't read it; I'm sure all members are aware of it.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MRS. DAILLY: I know that this was canvassed before, and I must admit that I missed part of the discussion. Can the minister tell me if he managed to have satisfactory agreement with the BCTF and the trustees before he finally brought this section 1n? I know that when we were in government we were considering working on it. We think the philosophy is good, but there certainly were a lot of problems to be worked out. Is the minister satisfied that those meetings took place? Was he part of them? Is there agreement on this section with the two major bodies involved?

HON. MR. McGEER: This was something which was exhaustively discussed with officials of the BCSTA and with the BCTF. Perhaps neither of those bodies were completely happy, but on the other hand, the positions are really irreconcilable therefore what we've done is to present what we believe is the best compromise consistent with excellence in the public school system and responsibility for the public purse. Both these organizations have been well aware of our intended legislation before it was presented to the House: therefore it comes as no surprise to them. I would say that they had agreed to it, though perhaps with some reluctance.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. LAUK: In second reading I mentioned to the minister that there was an articulate brief to the minister which was well-prepared and researched and based on a legitimate concern by the B.C. Teachers Federation. We were talking about the transferring and assignment of teachers, term assignment, declining enrolment transfers, and so on. I notice that 156(3) applies in the 129(c) amendment; that's good. It provides 30 days' notice and a few other helpful provisions. Can the minister indicate to the committee whether the other requests by the Teachers Federation for protection — that is, natural rights for teachers who have been transferred and are being transferred — to enable a fair hearing for them...? I'm concerned about some school districts that for local political reasons will transfer teachers and create a sort of mini-Scopes situation in their jurisdiction. There should be some protection for these teachers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Whenever teachers are transferred, they have the right of appeal. In each instance their appeal is reviewed by people whom I appoint. In quite a number of cases, I have refused the assignment or the transferring of a teacher from one area to another by a school board, The rule is a very simple one: if there's any suggestion that the transfer is punitive, then it is refused. In those cases where it's merely done for efficiency in the system.... After all, in every school district some areas are growing while other areas shrink, and the board obviously has to have some flexibility in assignments, or they'd have too few teachers in one area and too many in another. Where it's for those reasons, and where the teacher launches an appeal, we uphold the school board. But if it's done for any arbitrary or punitive reason, we turn them down. I can't tell you what the percentage is, but I would think perhaps one-quarter of the appeals are sustained and the transfer refused. I think the policy is well understood and, as far as I know. It's working reasonably well.

MR. LAUK: I personally trust the minister's sense of justice in this regard, but my personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, and so, really, is the minister's sense

[ Page 720 ]

of justice in these matters. What I'm arguing for is that when a transfer has longer than seven days' notice.... There are two situations where seven days' notice comes to the teacher: one is the notice of the transfer, and then a review by the board; and then a seven-day limitation for review by the minister. I feel that the minister or the board or the review panel should hold the review in public. There should be longer notices to enable the teacher to prepare a submission in cases where the transfer is unjustified or punitive, particularly because these transfers can give rise to a demotion, loss of pension rights, salary benefits and so on in some areas. I'm concerned that the minister has not seen fit to take that suggestion and expand the notice provisions and the public nature of the appeals that would be in process.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that section 19 is repeated in various forms later on in this bill. There's no other way to describe the minister's action in this regard except the desire to accumulate power to himself. He's afraid of the Legislature. He's created a situation where he can get regulations and laws passed on major policy issues without bringing them before the Legislature. Now in section 19 he wishes to avoid even the responsibility of bringing them before his colleagues in cabinet.

I'm assuming the cabinet agrees with this amendment. What about the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair)? Did you agree with this amendment here? Does he know what it says? I was wondering if the Minister of Environment can hear me. It says that section 169 of the Public Schools Act is amended by striking out the phrase "Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council" and substituting "the minister." He doesn't want you to see what's he's doing, Mr. Minister. He doesn't want any of his colleagues to see what he's doing. Oh, that's a sneaky thing! He hasn't even got the confidence of his colleagues to bring forward policy decisions to his colleagues. He wants to do it in the privacy of his office. Pretty soon, Mr. Chairman, I expect that you won't even see him at cabinet meetings. He might even move the whole Ministry of Education to an island where he can live in comfort and communicate to the world by carrier pigeon.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

MRS. DAILLY: Section 20, Mr. Chairman, changes the time in which a school must submit its enrolment figures to the ministry from October 31 to September 30. I guess most people wonder why I'm even bothering to ask this question about why it is changed. It has been there for a long time and I just cannot understand what the reason is for backing it up. Frankly, I've got some concerns that it is being backed up.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we already do it on both dates now. So this is really eliminating a set date, and the previous section was the same thing. It's an attempt to reduce the paperwork.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't find that answer satisfactory. You may be reducing the paperwork, but what you might also be doing is reducing the provincial revenue. I think we all are aware of the fact that many students will start school in September, and particularly in high school there are problems, causing them to drop out. It's unfortunate, but that's a fact of life. You can find a great variance in the enrolment between September and the end of October. I see one of the government members, still chairman of the school board, nodding his head. So the figures that come out in September may not be at all the figures that you have at the end of October. Yet if I remember from my school board days and other days, they're being paid on those figures.

So my concern is that I just don't understand why they've done it. He says it's to reduce the paperwork, and yet reducing paperwork, I just want to reiterate, may cost the government more money.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment to section 22. If the members will look in this section, they will see in line 3 the words "notwithstanding any bylaw of a board or any term of a debenture." The amendment is to strike out "or any term of a debenture." The reason for the amendment is that we are advised by our financial authorities that the inclusion of these words would be interpreted as the willingness of this Legislature to break the terms of contract of any debenture that would be guaranteed by the Crown and therefore would be regarded as a step that might be counterproductive for the borrowing of the province in a whole series of debentures or bonds that might be raised in the past or in the future. So I move that the "or any term of the debenture" be struck, because that's really not essential to the purposes of the section in any event.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: The opposition wouldn't be opposed to that if the minister could assure the opposition that offensive or restrictive terms of a debenture would not fall within the provisions of guarantee that the government had in mind. Do you follow what I'm saying? There should be some criteria for the board to follow when they are negotiating these debentures so that there won't be onerous terms that would prohibit the orderly repayment of them.

HON. MR. McGEER: There is a standard form on the debenture. The real intent of this section is only to call those bonds where there would be no necessity for changing the terms. But sometimes people get very enthusiastic when they draft amendments, and they want to cover eventualities that aren't really there but may be there at some future time. In attempting to deal with that hypothetical eventuality, they included words that the financial advisers in the money markets of the world have said are not a very good thing for a Legislature to do. So that is why the amendment is before us.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 721 ]

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendment.

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

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

Leave not granted.

Bill 18, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 117: minister's office. $115,544.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just as we get started, once again there is a violator. Please do not tap the mike with your fingers. It will help us avoid breakdowns in our Hansard. If you were not here when I admonished other members for doing so, I shall now take the opportunity to remind members. One also should not blow into the microphone.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, I certainly won't blow into it, Mr. Chairman.

I know that the opposition is very anxious to finish my estimates up by 6 o'clock this evening, so I won't take too long in a few opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, last year was a very good year for the forest industry in British Columbia. It was a good year for the ranching industry and a good year for the Forests ministry. I think the strength of the industry is reflected in the record earnings of the forest industry and the record revenue which the government received through the forest industry. I think that, too, is reflected in the record wage offer which has been provided to the workers in the forest industry this year. That's the way it should be when all sectors benefit from a very healthy and active forest industry.

Last year, a record of more than 75 million cubic metres of wood was harvested in British Columbia. Further to that, I think the strength of the manufacturing sector of the industry is brought out in the fact that only 680,000 cubic metres of logs were exported and, of course, these would have to be exported after receiving approval by the government through the export advisory committee. So export of unmanufactured material was at an all-time low in recent years, and harvesting was at an all-time high.

The Forests ministry is also responsible for the management of Crown range in British Columbia, and although production of beef was somewhat down, earnings of the industry were quite buoyant because of higher prices. So that sector of our responsibility to the industry related to it also had a good year.

Reforestation and silvicultural programs are a basic thrust of the new Ministry of Forests. I say ''new ministry" because it is a new ministry. It has a new mandate in legislation, and is undergoing quite extensive reorganization. Last year we had a special funding allotment under the revenue surplus bill of $10 million, which allowed the forest ministry, through dealing in the private sector, to greatly expand stand treatment and silvicultural work in the province. Last year some 97 million seedlings planted in our nurseries will be ready for planting in 1980. However, we may not really realize the fruits of the planting of all those seedlings because we did have some rather serious weather conditions which could have caused some mortality in the seedlings. The extent of that damage won't be known until later this year. Unfortunately plantings last year were down somewhat to about 60 million, rather than our target of 75 million. The reason for this was really two-fold. The prior winter we lost about six million seedlings due to frost heaving in our nurseries and difficult weather conditions, particularly in the latter part of last summer where we had extremely wet conditions, which were followed by dry conditions in the summer. Both made it very difficult to do the necessary site preparational work, so we had to turn back from the industry of about seven million seedlings.

Last year, as we all know, we had a bad fire season, The cost to the government of British Columbia was in the order of $15 million, and a great deal of damage was done to timber in the north. About 50,000 hectares were burned; this resulted in the loss of some four million cubic metres of wood. However, in spite of the season, the protection division of the Ministry of Forests did a remarkably good job. The losses could have been a lot worse than they were, and we all owe them a vote of thanks for that.

Right now we are very heavily involved in a timber supply area analysis. A new concept of timber management is brought about in the Forest Act, passed last year. All these timber supply area analyses will be completed by the end of 1980. The government at that time will be in a much better position to know exactly where we are in terms of timber supply, timber commitment, and uncommitted timber.

We in the Ministry of Forests are well advanced in our new computerized inventory techniques. We have a very sophisticated graphic design system, which really, I think, is a leader in North America, and probably in the world. People from all over the world have visited our inventory headquarters on Government Street. I'm sure many members here have taken advantage of our invitation and have visited there as well.

During the year the conversion to metric was completed. It was completed by the year-end, at least; that, of course, caused a lot of difficulty both within the industry and in the Forest Service.

[ Page 722 ]

Our information division completed two films during the year which were widely shown: Phase III, and The Renewable Resources. They were very well received by the general public, and I've used one of the smaller films myself throughout the province in trying to explain to the citizens of British Columbia the functions of the Forests ministry.

Of course, the highlight of 1978 was the new forest legislation which was passed in this House last June and given royal assent later. Practically all of the regulations are in place now, and the implementation of the legislation is well underway. This implementation has presented a major challenge to the Forests ministry, that together with our reorganization studies and the beginning of our reorganization plans, so that the structure of the industry will be compatible with the legislation which the ministry has to administer.

As we finalize the distribution of our staff throughout the province, we will be sitting down with all MLAs, regardless of party, and having a discussion with them as to what implications, if any, it will have on communities within their particular ridings. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the adverse effect will be very minor indeed. Only a small number, if any, of ranger stations will be phased out, and if the phase-out does in fact happen, it will be done over a number of years. In most cases smaller communities will have staffing at the Forests ministry — "district headquarters, " as they will be called in the future — increase substantially. There has been a lot of rumour and uncertainty around that. Our obligation right now is first to make sure the people in the ministry know what is going to be happening, to make sure the MLAs do and, through them and with their cooperation, to explain it to the civic leaders in the various communities that may be affected.

Our resource analysis program has been a tremendous challenge to us. As you know, by the legislation we passed last year we must have an assessment of the state of the forest and range resource presented to this Legislature by next spring. It will be presented to the government later this fall, together with a program of options for the management of the resource over the next five-year period. That program, of course, will be updated each year. We must know where we are and where we are going. The requirement of the assessment and the programs as provided in the Ministry of Forests Act will assure that this happens and is kept up to date.

I'm very pleased to finally have signed a subsidiary agreement under DREE with the federal government — early in the spring, I guess it was — which will provide, for the first time, federal funding for the intensive management of our forest lands in B.C. While I would have liked to have seen a much larger sum agreed to by the federal government, they told us that at that time they couldn't provide any more funding; but we both recognized, as we signed the agreement, that it's a beginning and the intention is for both levels of government — and this has since been confirmed by the new government in Ottawa — to be expanding this program as time goes on. This agreement, Mr. Chairman, is unique in Canada, because we managed to negotiate out of the agreement any jurisdictional imposition by the federal government on our resource-management responsibilities. We will work with the federal government to devise broad programs and individual projects; the management and administration of them will be strictly the responsibility of the provincial government, which is compatible with the authority given us under the British North America Act for resource management.

Last year the forest industry entered into zero-based budgeting, and we'll be carrying on with that this year. It's been an extremely good exercise and all levels of staff in the ministry were involved. It has, of course — as is the case with most new programs — provided us with some problems. The priorities established by regional managers in some areas have left them with problems, and these have been reflected throughout the ministry. I think the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) will be mentioning the problems that we've had due to priorities with Forest Service campsites. We will be overcoming those difficulties and have so far, I think, largely overcome the problems in that specific area, but it's a matter of our priorities with the moneys made available to us.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Under the terms of the ministry's new mandate and in further new legislation, the focus of the ministry in years to come will be on integrated management and intensive management of the forest land base for the benefit of all resources which depend upon that land base. An example of the types of things that are happening is the cooperative agreement between the industry and government on the Coastal Tree Improvement Board. We have said that our mandate, through our legislation, is to provide a partnership in management between the private sector and the government, and this is a good example of that type of cooperation. All sectors are interested, of course, in the best forest management that we can have in British Columbia.

In addition to the moneys which will be directly allocated by the government and through our agreement with Ottawa is the incentive provided in the Act under section 88 for the industry itself to return some of its earnings to forest management, which will, of course, benefit them through increased cut, and us through increased industrial activity.

Just one closing comment, Mr. Chairman. A year ago last June a new Deputy Minister of Forests was appointed. Mike Apsey and his executive assistant have had a tremendous workload over this last year, and this heavy workload will continue as we complete the implementation and development of all the policies and the few additional regulations for the administration of the forestry resource.

I have to extend my thanks to them and to the entire Forest Service staff for their patience and their hard work over the last year. We have a very dedicated, conscientious staff throughout the Forest Service. Their objective, as is mine as the minister and as is our government's, is to provide the best possible level of forest management in British Columbia. This is a commitment of ours and will be effected in our policies throughout the years.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that my friend from Revelstoke would like to get on with it, so I will close my comments now. I'm sure we can finish up by 6 o'clock if we set out minds to it.

MR. KING: I have no desire to hurry the minister at all. He's welcome to take all the time that he feels is necessary to account for his administration, or to try and do so. Before I get into the comments that I would like to offer respecting

[ Page 723 ]

the administration of the Ministry of Forests, I just want to share with the House a report that came into my hands. I believe it's from a Merritt paper. It's a report from your member, Tom Waterland, MLA for Yale-Lillooet and Minister of Forests. Although this particular column that the minister wrote does not dwell to any extent with the administration of his ministry, he did wax eloquent about all of the wonderful things that are happening in British Columbia. Right below his column is a little anecdote, and it seems to be rather poetic that it should follow hard on the heels of minister's column. It says: "The worst evil of all is to leave the ranks of the living before one dies." I find that pretty significant, Mr. Chairman. It's right underneath the minister's column, and it's attributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca. It's a very profound observation, and maybe it's prophetic in terms of the minister's future both with the ministry and politically speaking.

I acknowledge the minister's comments that the forest industry was in a fairly healthy position last year. There is no question that the deflation of the Canadian dollar greatly assisted all commodities for export. Our advantage in terms of competitive edge through the depressed Canadian dollar was very significant, and it shored up the economy of the forest industry cry well. However, I don't think that's a very accurate measure of the health of the industry.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

When the new Forest Act was introduced about a year ago, MLAs on this side of the House — and caucus members on the other side of the House, for that matter — all suggested that the Act be withdrawn and held in abeyance for a period of time, so that people in the community — independent entrepreneurs, salvage people, members of the large integrated firms and the public generally — would have an opportunity to scrutinize the statute and to make recommendations for modification and change. The great concern surrounding this recommendation was that everyone recognizes how fundamental the forest industry is to the economic health of British Columbia. Since this was a statute that was going to determine and control the policy direction regarding administration of that important resource for a great length of time, people wanted an opportunity to stand back and really scrutinize it and to offer ideas to the minister and to the Legislature for change. Quite frankly, I think it was one of the first times in the history of this province that such diverse groups as the trade union movement — the IWA, for instance — employer-oriented groups such as the Independent Truck Loggers' Association and members of all political stripes came together and made a very strong appeal to the minister to hold off passage of that bill while it could be more deeply considered.

The minister didn't see fit to do that, despite the fact that in the debate on the bill Gordon Gibson, who was then leader of the Liberal Party, and myself raised grave concerns about the implications of this bill. We saw it further entrenching the monopoly control of basically eight large integrated firms, all but one of whom are foreign corporations. The minister forged ahead, and he pushed the bill through the House. We've now had a year to watch the administration of the Ministry of Forests and to review the circumstances under which that bill was steamrollered through this House in very rapid fashion after it was introduced. We've had an opportunity to assess the implications and the consequences of that bill, particularly n the small-business sector of the forest industry in many regions of the province.

After one year of watching developments, it's clear for us that our judgment was accurate. The Act was a major mistake. The Act has, indeed, solidified monopoly control by the large integrated forest companies in the province, to the exclusion of Canadian entrepreneurs and small, independent business people. As the official opposition we have received unsolicited material from people everywhere in the province. Our files are full of facts showing defects in the statute. There is inept administration, vacillation and double-talk by the minister, while small entrepreneurs are going down the tube for a lack of timber supply in the province.

Mr. Chairman, in consideration of this minister's debate I'm going to deal specifically with the coastal area first, in order to demonstrate what is happening. But before I do that, I just want to read a letter into the record, a submission to the minister which corroborates the very serious charge that I have made. I have used language which is fairly strong. I have done that thoughtfully, and with the firm belief that the particular choice of language I used is demonstrably correct. A letter was sent to the minister from a group of small sawmillers in the East Kootenays, and I think it's appropriate that I read at least a section of that letter into the record of this House. I quote from the letter, signed by Eugene Schmidt:

"It is the intent of the submittals to clearly show a desperate need to change present government policies to include small business operators.

"The large, foreign monopolistic companies, with the aid of government, have placed a legal curtain around Crown timber, prohibiting access to small-business operators. This action makes a small businessman a foreigner in his own country."

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a statement from an entrepreneur, who has been operating in the East Kootenays, who unquestionably has demonstrated high efficiency, full utilization of the fibre allocated to him — not allocated to him; that which he was able to scratch for — creating employment for a significant number of people in an area of high unemployment. His conclusion after over a year of experience with the new Forest Act, with this minister's administration, is that he is a foreigner in his own domain, that he is being discriminated against and that all he receives is promises from the minister that a small business program will be instituted and that eventually some time down the road, through the much-vaunted small business program, fibre might be made available to him.

This same kind of story can be documented in many parts of the province. As one northern operator said to me, Mr. Chairman: "You cannot go to the bank with sympathy and promises. You cannot maintain your business on the hope that by 1980 there may be the real allocation of timber to a small-business program which will then become available to the independents in the province of British Columbia."

Most of these people are on the verge of disaster. They're either on the verge of bankruptcy or they're on the verge of simply cutting their losses, selling their plant out of the futility of any hope for achieving an allocation of timber.

[ Page 724 ]

Mr. Chairman, I said that we predicted defects in the statute. We said that the statute simply solidified the control of the monopolistic licence-holders and tenure-holders in the province of British Columbia. We have received complaints from all over the province. We have received documentation. We have received complaints not only from the industry but from the civil service — from the lower echelons of the civil service and from some fairly highly placed who are frustrated and embarrassed. They find it a shame that the administration of their ministry has had the effect of selling out the public interest in our number one resource in the province of British Columbia.

I entered the debate on the Forests estimates, not as a politician in opposition so much as one spokesman for the people who have complained to our party. We have had appeals for help from all sectors of the people involved in the forest industry. That includes the IWA, the small, independent business people, sawmillers, remanufacturers, specialty mills, and public servants.

Now something has to be wrong when we receive that kind of overwhelming appeal for help from large numbers of people in that industry, who say that things are not well in the forest industry.

Mr. Chairman, in general order of billions of dollars, the forest industry accounts for about $3.1 billion a year in exports; mining, about 0.8 percent; coal and petroleum and natural gas, about 0.6 percent; fish, 0.2 percent; chemicals, 0.5 percent; various machinery equipment, 0.2 percent; fruit and so on, 0.01 percent.

We import most of our food. The major products we export come from the public domain. Because we acquire our lifestyle, mainly, first and foremost, from the forest crop, from the trees that had been abundant in the British Columbia, we have enjoyed a very admirable lifestyle in the province of British Columbia. I suggest, unless there are major changes to the direction being taken by this minister, we are in grave jeopardy of losing the kind of lifestyle in British Columbia that the forest industry has supported and which we have become accustomed to.

In my view, the Forest Act is a crucial document. It should do the following things: it should build and restructure a weak economic foundation in the forest industry; it should provide opportunity for future job creation and expansion; it should ensure a secure quality of life and environment for the people in British Columbia; it should provide a sustaining source of revenue for the government to use to service people's social needs for the future.

I promised to stay away from too much political commentary in this debate. I want to try to make the minister understand precisely what I am concerned about, and precisely what a great number of people out in the community are concerned about — people who are neither NDPers nor Social Crediters, but who are British Columbia citizens interested in making the system work and in a fair distribution of the resource.

I quoted from a letter to the Premier about a year ago when the Forest Act was first published. The author was a life member of the Social Credit Party. He was one of those people carrying a gold metal membership card with a number under 200 — obviously an old-time Social Credit member and supporter in the province. This is basically what he told the Premier:

"While it is proper to give companies secure supply of timber on reasonable terms, that security will not long survive when access is given to foreign multinationals on terms that favour that class of business. What words will government use to convince and explain to the public how Canadians and B.C. entrepreneurs were dispossessed? What words will be used to persuade them that they were — treated fairly'? It could be, Mr. Premier, that in the election you call, the Forest Act will be the reason every coastal riding, including every forestry riding in the Interior, will be denied the Bill Bennett government."

Mr. Chairman, that prediction in that letter from a Social Credit life member was not very far from true. If I were completely politically motivated in this debate, I think I would not enter the debate....

Mr. Chairman, I knew this was going to happen. I was just going to start getting into my discussion and the clock was going to beat me. So I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed answers to questions on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 725 ]

APPENDIX

27 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following question:

Will the Minister advise the details of competition for Crown petroleum and natural gas resources by stating the price per acre paid and the total bonus paid in all of the sales held in the years 1976, 1977, 1978, and to date in 1979?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"CROWN SALE RESULTS

"1976

"1977

"1978

"1979