[ Page 3989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Mr. Macdonald –– 3989

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act –– 1980 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 3991

Mrs. Dailly –– 3992

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3992

Division on second reading –– 3992

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Mr. Howard –– 3993

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Mr. Nicolson –– 3993

Mr. Barber –– 3994

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3994

Division on second reading –– 3995

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 26). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 3995

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr

Wolfe)

On section 8 –– 3996

Mr. Cocke

Division on section 8 –– 3997

Report –– 3998

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3998

Mrs. Wallace –– 3998

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3999

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3999

Mrs. Wallace –– 4000

Mr. Cocke –– 4002

Mr. Barber –– 4003

Mr. Stupich –– 4004

Ms. Brown –– 4005

Mr. Barrett –– 4005

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4007

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 40). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4008

Mr. Cocke –– 4008

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4009

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On section 5 –– 4009

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hanson

On section 11 –– 4010

Mr. Hanson

Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR 402). Second reading.

Mr. Segarty –– 4011

Mr. Hanson –– 4011

Mr. Cocke –– 4011

Mr. Segarty –– 4011

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR 403). Second reading.

Mr. Ritchie –– 4011

Appendix –– 4012

MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make to the House today: first of all, from my constituency of Kamloops, Art and June Hooper. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

In the members' gallery today with my wife Patti and daughter Kim are three very important visitors for me from the city of Toronto: my son Ken, his wife Laura, and — someday to be heard from in this chamber, no doubt, and perhaps sooner than all of us would wish — my grandson Ken. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce in the gallery this afternoon Bill and May Hamburg, friends of Ina and Cliff Ludke. As many of you know, Ina is my secretary here in the buildings and Cliff is on the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff. For the past six years Bill and May have served in Canadian embassies in: Beirut, Lebanon; Ankara, Turkey; Warsaw, Poland; and Budapest, Hungary. On returning from holidays they will be serving the Canadian embassy in Vienna, Austria. I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's my pleasure to introduce a neighbour of mine from Prince George, Mr. John Whitmar, who is the president of the Council of Forest Industries this year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to join the Minister of Labour in welcoming John Whitmar. With John today is a group of people from the Council of Forest Industries: Tony Chevrier, Bert Gayle, Tom Buell, and John Ross. Would the House please welcome these gentlemen as well.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have some visitors today from Langley. I'd like the House to make welcome Mr. Bill Milne and family.

Oral Questions

APPLICATION FOR NORTH DELTA
NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relating to the pub that went to Gerry and Bob Olma last December. It's in the Kennedy Shopping Centre, 88th and 120th Street, Delta. The minister said there was a public hearing, and that it went to his discretion after being turned down by the liquor branch. Was there notice of time and place given to anyone that the appeal was going to take place? Was it in the B.C. Gazette, in the newspaper, or were letters sent out to people advising the time and place of this public hearing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not aware of any public hearing in the sense of that terminology. It was an appeal open to the public, quite different.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to know — on behalf of the public, of whom I'm one — how the public would know that the appeal was taking place.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The appellant, of course, is advised, as would be members of the liquor control branch, who also have a role to play in such a hearing. They are the principals involved in the application, and they are advised. The public is served in that if they have a particular interest in that, they would be made aware of that in some way. But the public is also served by the access of the media to such hearings as they have attended in the past.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: was the press notified, and if so. In what form?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, the press was not notified specifically in that instance. The press, I think, generally appreciates that the hearings are usually held each second Wednesday, and if they request when a hearing takes place, they are advised, as they have been in the past.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, did anybody, except the liquor administration branch — and the appellant, of course — know that this appeal was coming up? How would they know about this particular appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't speak on behalf of all people, and perhaps some knew. I have no way of knowing if some people knew. There could have been some people who were aware, but I don't know who they might be.

MR. MACDONALD: Then I take it that the Catholic church across the road from the pub site, and Mr. Pridie, who had been rejected for his application in the same area, didn't have any notice of this, as far as you know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I am not aware that they had any notice.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a great appeal procedure, I must say.

I ask this question to the member. You said that the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) was in the room, sitting on a chair against the wall, when the appeal took place. That was his function and his role. How would the hon. member for Delta know that the appeal was to take place, and its time and place, if there was no notice of it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, presumably it is because the member for Delta takes an interest in constituency matters.

MR. MACDONALD: Assuming for a moment that the Catholic church across the road was objecting to the proposed pub and was willing to take an interest in the matter, how would they know? Was the Catholic church across the road from the pub site given any opportunity to make representations?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Catholic church which the member refers to had the opportunity of making representa-

[ Page 3990 ]

tion in this matter. I met with them in my office in Richmond. They also met with the general manager of the liquor control board, and their concerns, in part, brought about certain conditions when the licence was issued. The meetings with the representatives from that church and school were most cordial. They admitted that they were coming at a very late hour, but they wanted their concerns heard. And their concerns were heard, and some of their concerns were considered and brought about the conditions of the licence.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the Catholic church that you refer to given notice of the time and place of the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not that I'm aware of; it's possible that they may have, but the Catholic church representatives asked for and received a meeting well after the appeal had taken place, prior to the issuance of the licence. Perhaps the member is confused as to what the appeal is; it's not an appeal for a licence, Mr. Member. The licence occurs some time later.

The church made representations to council, I believe, and also to me and the general manager of the liquor control branch. They were accorded an audience and their concerns were taken into consideration, as reflected in the conditions of the licence.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm relieved to know that after you had decided to grant the application for the appeal over the refusal of the liquor control branch the church then had an opportunity to say something. It wouldn't do them any good, but they had that opportunity.

I ask the minister: who filed the notice of appeal, and who put up the $100 deposit which is required on appeals of that kind?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I presume it was the appellant; that would be consistent with the concept of the appellant appealing.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to file with the House the notice of appeal and the $100 deposit and take as notice the question of who actually filed that appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member would like, I presume, the name on the letter of application for appeal.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Will you file that in the House?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. I'll get the information for you, if that's what you require. I presume you want the letter which was sent saying: "We would like to appeal the decision." I'd be pleased to give you the information you're asking for and the names of the people who were signatories to such a letter. I don't know what good a $100 cheque would do; presumably it's been cashed by now.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House as to who was helping with this appeal and actually filed the documents — not who signed them?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether that information would be available — unless the member is asking if there was a law firm acting on behalf of the appellant. If there was a law firm, sure, I'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

MR. MACDONALD: I specifically ask the minister: will he look into that and report back to the House on who filed the appeal, who set up the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly.

MR. MACDONALD: All right.

My next question: did the liquor control branch make representations in writing or otherwise at that appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It would be a matter of looking into the records, Mr. Speaker. The liquor control branch representatives were there. On occasion there may be some written evidence, but usually it's oral evidence.

MR. MACDONALD: On this occasion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to check.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the minister undertake to come back to the House with that information and table with this House a submission if it was in writing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll do the best I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Prior to the appeal being heard, was the hon. member for Delta in communication with the minister relating to this appeal, in any way?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's quite possible. I have no specific information on that. It's possible the member could have phoned, asking when an appeal was to take place, but I don't know of any other type of communication.

MR. MACDONALD: Is the minister saying specifically that this was not discussed at all with the member for Delta?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Did he say he can't remember?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's not unusual for members to contact my office or the deputy's office or the general manager's office to obtain information with respect to dates of appeal. The appeal procedure had some backup for a while, and they were being cleared as rapidly as possible. It was quite common for members to make contact on behalf of a constituent, to determine when the appeal might be heard. So it's quite possible; it could have occurred in any of the cases.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the minister: in view of the fact that a member of the Legislature communicated with you and made representations in respect to an appeal of this kind — and you were to be the judge sitting at a later date.... That would be a highly improper thing. I am asking you why you don't remember and why you give the answer to the

[ Page 3991 ]

House that you have no recollection of such a meeting between yourself and the hon. member for Delta. Wouldn't you remember it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of having many meetings with the member for Delta and members for other constituencies. A great deal may be discussed at such meetings. The member said certain representations may or may not have been made, or could or could not have been made. I presume that is a probing question of some kind. If the member wants to get the entire picture in view, the appeal was decided on the information presented at the appeal and on nothing else.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the minister's answer — as best I can get at this time — in terms of whether he had personal communication about the appeal, not about the time or place. Obviously the member for Delta knew that. I ask him: was the hon. member for Delta in touch either with other people in his office or with the liquor control branch with respect to this appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no knowledge of that, I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. minister come back to the House and give us that information?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, that is presuming that there is such information.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the minister check to see whether or not that is the case and come back to the House and let us know?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to look in the file, and if there is such communication I will so advise the member.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my question was not just about a letter. My question was whether the member for Delta had been in touch, relating to this appeal, with the liquor administration branch or with anyone in the minister's office, including the minister. Will the minister refresh his recollection, come back to the House, and advise the House accordingly?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of recollection, since I'm not the person to whom the member for Delta may have been speaking and since I'm not an official of the liquor control branch. I suppose we could begin by speaking to the general manager and all the many people on the staff. I'm not quite sure how long it might take to communicate with everybody in the liquor control branch. Thankfully, he didn't ask on the liquor distribution branch; we'd have to interview all the clerks in the liquor stores. I'll try to find out but I'm not sure where to begin.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the liquor board regulations say that, "In reviewing the site the branch is concerned with the following factors: proximity to churches" — and there is a church right across the road — "...and shopping centres are not considered favourable sites for neighbourhood public houses." In view of the fact that the Olmas owned this parcel of land under separate title, and it was all part of their shopping centre which they had also acquired, how does the ministry explain the apparent breach of regulations that occurred in this case?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member is not reading regulations.

MR. MACDONALD: I am reading from a summary, "Liquor Licensing in British Columbia," put out by the liquor control branch. Was this brought to your attention on the appeal — that there was a church across the road and that this was part of a shopping centre all owned by the same people?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: From the best of my memory, there were three reasons cited by the general manager for the refusal. I'd have to check precisely, but they were concerned about traffic, which was one of the conditions of the license. Another concern was the total number of seats in licensed premises in that area of Delta. I think the third concern was proximity to a shopping centre. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite confident, subject to precise analysis of that letter, that there was no reference to the church location in the refusal; that was not one of the reasons cited for refusal of the preclearance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, again I must cite from Beauchesne's fifth edition, section 359 on page 132, which stresses the amount of urgency in a question. Section 5 of paragraph 359 says: ''The matter ought to be of some urgency. There must be some present value in seeking the information during the question period rather than through the order paper or through correspondence with the minister or the department." I read that for the benefit of members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today we have Mrs. Peggy Lee from Vancouver. With Mrs. Lee is one of her three daughters — who are triplets — and I'd like the House to welcome Barbara, who is a sister to Deborah and Cathy. Barbara is here in our Legislature for the very first time today, and I would ask the House to welcome her.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed — with leave — to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (TEACHERS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: Last Friday we outlined, as did the

[ Page 3992 ]

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) on an earlier occasion under a different bill, our views with respect to this particular piece of legislation, and our objections to it.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before the minister winds up reading, he should, I think, correct a statement he made when speaking on the bill on Friday, and I hope he will. He suggested that the teachers of British Columbia had accepted and were in agreement with what has been presented to them in the bill. I think the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) should be aware of the fact that the teachers rejected this proposal at their last convention.

I think the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) gave an excellent outline of our objections to this bill on Friday, and I certainly don't intend to repeat those objections.

I have just one final word. I hope that when the minister winds it up he will explain, not only to the opposition but for the benefit of the teachers of the province, why the teachers have been treated inequitably in comparison to the BCGEU members — and we are very happy to see the manner in which they have been treated. But we still fail to understand why the teachers have been treated in another fashion. I hope the minister will explain this to us, especially when the teachers have said that they are willing to move into changes in the financing of their funds similar to those accepted by the BCGEU. Therefore we fail to understand why they're not included in a similar bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In closing debate on the second reading of the Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, I have just a couple or three brief comments. The member for Skeena and the member for Burnaby North made reference to the fact that the teachers were not in accord with the amendments which we have before us and that it was incorrect to indicate that there had been any agreement. Mr. Speaker, I should explain that the changes before us are really the result of long negotiations — discussions — with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and others, which originated back in 1978. The results of these discussions were pursued by the Teachers' Federation before my two predecessors as Provincial Secretary, who were asked to attend to these amendments at the soonest opportunity. At a very early date after my appointment of last November as Provincial Secretary, I was approached by the Teachers' Federation and asked when we might consider introducing these amendments.

There might be some difference of opinion as to whether the word "agreement" is a proper word to apply to this series of amendments. Suffice it to say that what we have before us is a package of amendments which the teachers are well aware of. The package includes substantially improved funding in the interests of correcting the unfunded liability problem in the Teachers' Pension Fund. It includes the recommendations of the joint Wiggins report, which improves elderly teachers' pensions by an average of some $50 each. It includes other things, such as further recognition of part-time teaching, new flexibility in terms of interest rates applied to contributions which an employee withdraws, and the new controlled fund for indexing, or what is now called the inflation adjustment account.

If I may, I'd like to table two letters — one was addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Curtis, and one was addressed to me; one is dated March 29, 1979, and the other is dated November 26, 1979 — which include the items of this so-called package. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to include with that a further schedule which will explain, I think, in fairly brief terms the difference in the funding between the teachers' pension plan and the public service pension plan. But in reference to the teachers' convention, the package I'm referring to, which was developed into the amendments before us.... The teachers, in their most recent convention, considered the matter of open-ended indexing and passed a resolution to maintain open-ended indexing.

This bill was at the eleventh hour of proceeding into this House. That was at a very recent date. For two reasons it was not possible to consider that matter. First of all, we had a package before us, and if you remove one element of the package — a very important one — it's very difficult to consider the other items in the package. Secondly, it was simply physically too late to consider at that time. It's sufficient to say that the government is committed to having a fund for the payment of any indexing in the future; not an open-ended fund which has no way of being paid for, but a controlled fund for the payment of any indexing or inflation adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table these two letters.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: On the matter of funding per se and why it is that there may be a difference between the funding for the inflation account of the public service and the funding for the inflation account of the teachers, it is simply this, Mr. Speaker. There is now a substantial difference in the contribution being made by the employer, or the government, towards pensions of teachers and in the case of public service. In the case of the teachers' pension plan, including the inflation adjustment account, the government is contributing, in effect, some 10.2 percent of salary. In the case of the public service plan, the employer or the government is contributing what amounts to 9.0 percent. It is therefore not a credible case to suggest that funding on behalf of the employer for the teachers' pension plan could be increased at this time. We have just increased by some 2.5 percent the level of the government contribution to teachers' pension plans to arrive at this 10.2, at a cost of upwards of $13 million increase in the cost to the teachers' pension plan on behalf of the taxpayer.

In closing the debate on second reading, I say again that this is a package of benefits improving funding which includes the new controlled fund for indexing. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 3993 ]

NAYS — 22

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

Bill 29, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980, 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. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this bill amends the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, primarily for the purpose of enabling certain matters. One amendment clarifies that the act applies to persons who are in receipt of an allowance under the Public Service Superannuation Act, employees who are in receipt of long-term disability benefits, and Members of the Legislative Assembly. The other amendment clarifies that benefits may be provided under either an insured or a non-insured arrangement, and that the terms of a benefit plan which is not insured may be specified under the terms of this act.

MR. HOWARD: I would make just a brief commentary in the same vein as the minister's. It is valuable to clarify pieces of legislation to ensure that legislation of this nature does apply to people who are pensioners, people under disability benefits, and the like, where there is doubt that that may be the case at the moment. We see this bill as falling under that category of simply clarifying the intent of the original act.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, once again I would point out that this is enabling legislation. Any such adaptation of these plans goes by way of order-in-council. The act simply clarifies that the extension of long-term benefits and so on to people on superannuation is enabled.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980, 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. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this bill basically provides two amendments to the Public Service Act. The first one proposes the repeal of part 3 of this act. Arrangements for the arbitration of differences would, after this repeal, be as agreed upon by the government and its unionized employees. In other words, the repeal of part 3 in effect abolishes the present Public Service Adjudication Board and its function. In the future, failing any agreement between parties on a matter of grievance, the Labour Relations Board would have the necessary jurisdiction. It is felt that the Public Service Adjudication Board, during its effective term, has performed a useful service in attending to a great many very complicated matters of grievance. Having done that on what are to quite a degree legal matters, the time has come now where these matters can proceed better with the more direct process that existed heretofore. Secondly, this is a move which will make labour relations still more a matter of immediate and contending concern to those actually involved. The same types of arbitration between the same parties will continue, and the Government Employee Relations Bureau and the unions involved will provide the administration services,

The other amendment has to do with including, under the description of deputy ministers, the description of assistant deputy or associate deputy ministers, insofar as their applying to the public service definition and their hiring is concerned. It has the substantial motivation of understanding that assistant deputies perform very directly through a minister's office, as does a deputy, as a part of his team in trying to perform his function for government in whatever portfolio is his responsibility.

I think there has been some degree of misunderstanding as to this amendment. It is a fact that when you examine appointments of senior executive members of government over the past number of years.... In fact, going back some eight years I find that there are a substantial number of appointments to the office of assistant deputy minister and other senior executive functions, outside of deputies, both by order-in-council and not by order-in-council. In fact I counted some 132 persons in the course of the last eight-year period who were appointed to senior executive offices, in effect, with or without competition — some of them with and some without order-in-council being applied. So the thrust of this, once again, is that we include assistant deputies in the same category as deputy ministers for the purpose of appointment only. These would then be appointed, essentially speaking. by order-in-council under the same part of the Public Service Act as exists for deputy ministers.

I move second reading.

MR. NICOLSON: The official opposition will vote against this, because in spite of what the minister has just outlined he has not really sought to regularize the appointment of assistant and associate deputy ministers, but rather to politicize their appointment. We're going to see another step down the path toward Duplessis-style government and administration in this province. It's only one small retrograde step which fits in very well with the existing pattern of this government of open-ending the number of people that can be in cabinet, and appointing infinite numbers of people. If they wish, to ICBC boards of directors, and here politicizing the level of assistant and associate deputy minister. I'm sure that this year it is much more germane to difficulties that they're

[ Page 3994 ]

having in the Ministry of Finance in terms of reorganizing things the way they want them, and perhaps the Bonnell situation is symptomatic of something which this government is really trying to pull off. So for that reason we'll be voting against this.

MR. BARBER: This bill is another Socred trespass against parliamentary tradition. This bill is another attack on the impartiality of the public service of British Columbia. This bill is another message to civil servants that unless they support the Socred machine they can no longer rise higher than the level immediately below associate or assistant deputy minister. Together with my colleague, Mr. Hanson, I represent a public service town. We represent a group of people who have strong and important feelings about the traditions of an impartial, disinterested and non-political public service. It has always been the case that in the capital cities of this country an impartial and respected public service has known that on the basis of ability alone their members can rise to the very top. They have known that on the basis of merit exclusively they have a chance, as public servants pursuing a career, to go to the very highest point their skills, imagination and administrative talents will take them — that is, they knew this until today. Today, under the coalition, they now get a very different message. Under the coalition there are now excluded from the impartial administration of the Public Service Commission the second- and third-highest positions formerly available to public servants in this province.

Now it's a matter of public record that certain ministries are in internal disarray, the Ministries of Finance and Tourism chief among them. It's a matter of public record that in the cases of both those ministries, where extreme steps have been taken to get rid of people who apparently will not toe the party line — ask Lionel Bonnell about that one....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Gross exaggeration.

MR. BARBER: No exaggeration at all. Take your place in this debate, if you can defend.... If the Minister of Finance would even....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member; you will address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: That's right — as should the Minister of Finance.

If the Minister of Finance is prepared to defend this politicization of two more of the most senior ranks in the public service, let him do so; but he also has public servants in this riding, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt that he'll do so much. I also doubt that it will appear, much, in his campaign literature next time — assuming he runs next time.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Or in Mr. Rangel's campaign literature — whoever it is.

The point is that no administration should be permitted — nor in any capital city should they feet supported — to get away with an attempt to further politicize the administration of public policy in this province This is a message to public servants that they have removed from their career options two more ranks that were formerly open on the basis of ability alone and will shortly be open on the basis of cabinet approval alone — and that always means politics. This is a retrograde step; it betrays a primitive impulse; it betrays the traditional Socred attempt in this province to control and muzzle senior public servants. Witness the miserable way in which Lionel Bonnell was treated by this government and by government members in the public accounts committee, who abused and insulted him openly. It is a further message to public servants across Canada that once more — thanks to the Socred government — the British Columbia public service is being treated as a joke and is being insulted and ridiculed at every opportunity.

The official opposition cannot support this bill. The official opposition has more respect for the historical role in the British system of an impartial, disinterested and apolitical public service, able to operate to the very highest levels.

MR. REE: Full of NDP supporters.

MR. BARBER: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano says more than he should have: "Full of NDP supporters," he said. Well, if that's his analysis, I guess his answer is to fill it with Socred supporters, and thus we have this bill. But there are two problems: first of all, the analysis is dead wrong; and secondly, so is the answer. It's a matter of record that the only deputy minister sacked by the New Democratic administration in '72-75 was Mr. Ronald Worley, who was a most curious deputy minister and who once wrote a book called The Wonderful World of W.A.C. Bennett, in which he praised, in a very partisan way, the then Socred Premier. To the best of my knowledge that was the only deputy minister sacked by our government. That's because our government had respect for the traditions of impartiality that have always governed and illuminated the role of the public service, This government proposes to diminish the value, the worth and the strength of that tradition. It's to their shame that they would try to get away with it.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it's pretty obvious that the opposition, and the first member for Victoria particularly, wishes to distort the intent of this bill, because it's clear that what he says is completely misguided. If he will examine — which he didn't choose to do — the answer to question No. 75, which was on the order paper, which lists in detail all of the assistant deputy ministers appointed since the year 1972, he'll find that there are some 132 persons appointed without competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There are 132 appointed without competition. In 1972 there were 7; in 1973, 19. I could give you their names, Mr. Member; just look up the answer to question 75.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply makes clear for the protection of these assistant deputy ministers that they have the benefits of the Public Service Act as applied to deputy ministers, so there is no confusion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member is sort of blubbering away, Mr. Speaker. He's confused over my answer to the question and doesn't understand, because he lives in Victoria and feels he wants to kowtow to all of the public service and so on here. He doesn't choose to really study the matter to

[ Page 3995 ]

understand that it's for the benefit of the assistant deputy ministers to be included in this category. As I say, people in this category have been appointed without competition for many years; there have been some 132 appointed in the past eight years, including 48 during the term of the previous government. So I ask him to refer to the answer to question 75 on the order paper. If he misreads this as meaning that you can hire and fire at will, as he might think in the case of a deputy.... The Public Service Act does not protect a person against poor performance. An employee can in fact be terminated, regardless of whether he's hired under the Public Service Act or not. This simply clarifies the appointment of these people. So let's not make a "fish nor fowl" of this practice....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to remain silent while the member is speaking — the same courtesy as was afforded him by the minister when he was engaged in his dialogue.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, it is to clarify. It is not, as has been said, to inject an attack on the public service and not to destroy the element of public service hiring on merit. The intent is very clear. It has been a practice in many cases to hire senior personnel without competition. This is to give the minister freedom in the function of his own personal obligation and portfolio in government. With those few words of explanation, I disagree completely with what the previous members referred to in commenting on the bill.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

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

Bill 37, Public Service Amendment Act, 1980, 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. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (COLLEGE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 26: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 26, Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS 21

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a very short introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have two good friends in our gallery today, Peggy and Jim Aldred. They are from White Rock in the constituency of the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). On behalf of the minister and myself I would like to ask the House to join with us in welcoming them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I also ask leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3996 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on this very lovely summer day we, have a very lovely guest and her husband with us in the gallery, Jane and Gary Brookes, good friends of the government and, furthermore, the daughter and son-in-law of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there are two amendments. Amendment (a) states: "In paragraph (a) by deleting 4.77 percent and substituting 5 percent."

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That amendment states: "In paragraph (b) by deleting 6.27 percent, and substituting 6.5 percent."

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it would have been a surprise, possibly, but it certainly would have been a pleasant surprise had the minister moved an amendment to section 8. That's the section that should be amended. This is the section where the government is dipping their hands into the pockets of the municipal employees and taking away indexing. We've discussed this to some extent under the three other bills which were not amended.

They not only amended but they substituted for the provincial government employees, but they haven't substituted in terms of the municipal employees. What they've done is taken B.C. back a decade or two and placed the province in a position where we are advocating that there should be no protection for the municipal workers in terms of inflation when they retire — protection, if you will, for those municipal workers and all other workers that have trade unions as their advocates or others working on their behalf.

The intent of this section 1s to tell those workers that when they're retired there will be no indexing of note. I understand there is to be some, but the minister himself indicated that there is a real cutback in terms of putting the ceiling on the indexing the way we have. I think it's just unfortunate. I think that the people in the province should be wary of a government that's prepared to turn back the clock every time they have an opportunity in the name of some form of conservatism.

Leadership of this kind can only lead us up the path of providing more benefits in terms of welfare and other benefits to those people later on. Eventually you're going to have to pay the piper, because we're faced with near double digit inflation. Under those circumstances, if you have a pension plan that doesn't reflect that, then what you have, Mr. Chairman, are people who become increasingly poor on pension. Fixed-income people are the people who should be helped rather than hurt, and this section hurts the fixed income people.

I ask the minister: why did you do it? Why, at least, did he enhance the situation of the public service employees and not do likewise'for the teachers, college teachers and municipal employees? We have had the benefit in this province of a large investment pool, and that investment pool has helped us build dams, bridges, schools and hospitals. Then we say to the people who provided a large portion of that pool: "We're not going to stand behind you in the future when you're retired." One of the reasons for that is the fact that they don't have much muscle at that time. A pensioner can't strike and hasn't recourse to any kind of action that would wake the government up. I think that that's precisely what we're doing. How are we getting away with it now to some extent? We're getting away with it now because a lot of people can't even imagine retirement, and so they don't think about it. But I say it's a disaster, and I would just like to warn the government that they're on a very rocky course. In my view it's a travesty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before carrying on, the Chair must inform the committee that there were two amendments to section 7. The first one was passed. I will now introduce the second. Shall the second amendment to section 7 pass?

[ Page 3997 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want briefly to respond to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who once again seems to be a little mixed up in terms of the purpose and how the funding of the Pension (Municipal) Act functions.

Number one, the government does not fund the municipal pensions. We administer the payment of these pensions, but we only amend their legislation at the request of those bodies. We have before us amendments which are clearly endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, in fact, their joint pension committee which functions with their union employees. I have before me a public statement made by that organization on May 27, in which they state:

"'The government's intention, through Bill 27, to discontinue open-ended automatic indexing provisions of pensions paid to retired employees in favour of a more controlled system has the full support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities,' said Mayor Charles Lakes, UBCM president. 'In addition,' said Lakes, 'it is significant that the UBCM also has the support of our employees, whose representatives, during a series of joint discussions on the topic over the past two years, agreed that the time has come to place a limit....'"

I'd be happy to table that statement, and further, a letter from the municipal employees' pension committee to me as Provincial Secretary, May 26.

"The members of the municipal employees' pension committee, representing approximately 42,000 subscribers, wish to thank you for presenting Bill 27 to the Legislature."

I just don't want the member to be confused. We operate this act at the request of those bodies but we do not provide the funds for them; we administer that. I'm referring only to the Pension (College) Act and the Pension (Municipal) Act when I say that. We do fund the Pension (Teachers) Act, and in a certain way we do fund the Pension (Public Service) Act. I wanted to explain that in commenting further on section 8.

MR. COCKE: I can table the exact same correspondence; I have it before me. If that reflects the feelings of the union.... Tell me it does — I dare you, I defy you to stand up and tell me it does. What a bunch of nonsense! It reflects the opinion of a very small rump group of people, and the minister knows it. As far as I'm concerned, I still say this is absolutely abysmal leadership. It's not giving any kind of leadership at all. If this reflects the feelings of some of the leaders in those municipalities, so be it, but it's rotten leadership. Having been involved in this particular area most of my working life, I'll say that in any form you like in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Say it in New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Yes, in New Westminster. I'll debate you right in New Westminster on this subject any old day you like.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay. Happy to. You'd better get more information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The minister says I'd better get more information. I don't want the kind of information you're espousing. What you're doing is saying you're prepared to give the kind of leadership that doesn't turn back the clock too far in the case of our own employees, but you're not prepared to do that in the other one that you fund, the teachers. Nor are you prepared to do it to give some leadership to the municipalities and offer some real definite leadership rather than this business of going back on indexing which came in unanimously endorsed when it began,

Now what are we going to do, turn tail and run? Are we going to let the trust companies and insurance companies in this country dictate the way we produce pensions? They've been doing that and selling us out to the point that our economy is now 70 percent owned outside the nation of Canada, One of the reasons for that is the fact that we've never had guts enough to invest in our own country and the growth of our country. Instead of that we've been loaning to the multinationals so that they can invest and give us a measly return. That's our problem — no imagination, no guts. That's what drove me into politics and will keep me in politics until we can teach some of these conservative thinkers that they've been on the wrong course for so many years it's not even funny, and every time there's a move forward they try to turn the clock backward again. It's a rotten shame.

Pensioners in the future will suffer as a result of this abysmal policy. I've nothing more to say, Mr. Chairman, than that it's a mistake.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS 20

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

[ Page 3998 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of myself and the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I would like to introduce a neighbour of mine, Carol McGregor, and her daughter Tisha.

On section 9.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 27, Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980. reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: In rising to move second reading of the Livestock Act, I'd just like to outline that the purpose is really to consolidate three bills, the Animals Act, the Livestock Production Act and the Livestock Act. These acts have dealt with the control of livestock relating to livestock at large, the trespass and damage caused by animals at large, the establishment of pound districts in which livestock owners must fence specific livestock, and control over livestock artificial insemination practices to ensure that the quality and health of livestock is maintained and that insemination is carried out by qualified individuals. The act also deals with the establishment of bull control areas to ensure that the users of the range in a specified area meet their responsibilities in the provision of acceptable bulls, and also the establishment of livestock districts in which specified livestock can be enlarged. This act, Mr. Speaker, is simply a consolidation of livestock legislation into one statute and does not assume any significant powers beyond those that are already contained in existing legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it seems that whenever we start dealing with agricultural matters, there are certain members of this Legislative Assembly who are very entertained. I would hope that that doesn't happen again, because certainly agriculture is a very important industry in this province. When we're talking about bull control, as we will be talking in this act, I think perhaps that we must be sure that there is a little of it in this assembly as well.

Mr. Speaker, certainly the minister has done a good job of reading the explanations that go along with this act. He has indicated that it is the consolidation of three other pieces of legislation. I would be the first to agree that the three pieces of legislation which are being consolidated certainly need to have some changes made to them. The opposition agrees that it's a very bad policy to include three such varied items as are included in this piece of legislation under one very vague title. It's bad just from a matter of administration to try to find a particular piece of legislation relative to a certain topic when there is no indication in the title of the act what that particular act includes.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by putting the legislation relative to pound districts, livestock areas, bull control areas, bull control committees, artificial insemination centres and technicians all under one piece of legislation and intituling that the "Livestock Act" is akin to putting housing, municipal and health legislation into one bill and intituling it the "People Act," because it tells you just as much about what you're going to find in that bill if that kind of a title was relative to those other pieces of legislation. So we, on this side of the House, do not agree with the concept of combining so many pieces of unrelated information into one act intituled the Livestock Act. There is no justification for doing that when you have other livestock bills. You have the Livestock Public Sale Act, the livestock brands act, and other livestock bills dealing with specific items that relate to the livestock industry. To put these three very important items under just the heading of "Livestock Act" seems to me to be giving very short shift to some very important subjects in the realm of agriculture.

The other item that we object to in this bill,, Mt. Speaker, is that once again this government is up to its old tricks — and this minister is up to his old tricks — of taking the specifics out of legislation, making the legislation very vague and very general, and putting everything into regulation by order-in-council. It's another example of cabinet government. We have in this new bill a whole page of regulations ranging from (a) to (o). A great many of the very important things that will occur under these three various sections of this act will be specified by regulations with no input from the Legislature and no public knowledge, really, of what those regulations will be.

We're being asked to vote on a bill that is removing from legislation, because it's repealing these other three acts, some pretty specific items that are set out in the statutes and are being rescinded. There are, for example, items relative to the amounts of reimbursement of a keeper of a pound. Certainly those things change as time goes by, but without any guidelines in here except by regulation, there is no assurance in passing this legislation that the keeper of a pound will be adequately compensated for the time and effort that he puts into that; neither is there anything that covers the appeal procedures, except for going to court. There used to be something set out in the old legislation that covered that. Those things would now be more or less covered by regulation, and completely out of the control of the Legislature.

[ Page 3999 ]

There is another section that....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Can we deal with it in committee?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I will deal with those in committee, Mr. Attorney-General, but these things relate to the principle of this bill, which is taking out of legislation things which we believe are very important to have spelled out in some degree of exactness, rather than in such vague and general terms. We object to this government by regulation, which means that it's out of the hands of the Legislature, and very often out of the hands of the minister, because it's in the hands of the people who are in some instances far removed from the actual piece of legislation; they're giving their interpretation to it in the field without too much assistance and without very close direction. Certainly it is much easier for those people if there is something specific spelled out in the legislation.

So for those reasons — the fact that it is definitely combining far too many things under a very vague title, and because it's putting so much into regulations — we are opposed to this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If I may, I would just ask leave to table letters I referred to during the debate on the pensions act.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have just a few comments in general, because I know the member for Cowichan-Malahat will be dealing with specific items in committee. With regard to the comment about a vague title, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure in regard to vagueness, but one of the acts that we are consolidating is the Animals Act, and that is far more vague than "livestock," as "livestock" relates to agricultural animals; the Animals Act could relate to domestic pets. It could relate to wild animals, or it could relate to livestock. So I think we've been more specific as opposed to being more vague.

The member talks about regulations. Yes, the section on regulations deals with a number of items which will be administered by regulation. But I'd like to take the positive approach to that, the fact that it gives the Minister of Agriculture and his staff the ability to react to the needs of an industry rather than having to wait until the next legislative session and attempting to have amendments brought into the act. The member herself mentioned that change takes place as time goes on, and I concur with that. That's why I feel that regulation on those items that are specifically mentioned in section 19 of the bill will enable us to react and to pass regulations to assist the industry rather than further delaying the change.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 50, Livestock 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. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
AND FOOD ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: I must say it does give me great pleasure to rise to move second reading of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act. I've worked toward this for the last two or three years. After becoming Minister of Agriculture I felt that we should have a better identity with the total food chain in this province. Although our farmers produce the primary product, in the end that product is consumed by the consumer. I'd like to be able to have the ministry somewhat modernized, to identify with many things that we are doing right now, to give a public presence that we in the Ministry of Agriculture deal in food — the production and, you might say, the processing of food — and that many of our activities should be related to the total food chain as opposed to just that area within the farm gate.

The bill broadens the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture to include activities in the segment of the province's food system which lies between the farm gate and the supermarket shelf, basically broadening it to include the food and beverage secondary manufacturing sector.

Preliminary estimates for 1979 show that the food and beverage secondary manufacturing sector shipped $2.1 billion worth of products. This accounts for approximately 18 percent of the manufactured shipments of the province, a performance surpassed only by the wood-manufacturing industry in this province. If you add to this the $632 million in farm-gate receipts — farm cash receipts — you will have an industry which contributes substantially to the provincial economy. There are 43,400 people employed in the primary agriculture and secondary food manufacturing sectors: 25,000 people in farming and 18,400 in the processing and distribution sector of the food chain. The resource on which this industry is based is highly renewable. That speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The province cannot, in my opinion, overlook the fact that we have a renewable, viable industry in this province — one that contributes considerably to the provincial economy.

Since 1894, when the first Department of Agriculture Act was passed, statutes have been revised to keep pace with the growth and development of agriculture in this province. Over the years the Ministry of Agriculture has devised programs which work closely with the secondary manufacturing sector, but it is time, in my opinion, for a major step to be taken in this direction. This sector of the economy lacks an appropriate focal point in government, and the expansion of the ministry's mandate will enable it to embrace the food industry as a whole. I consider it a part of a natural evolution in industry/government relations.

The effects of such an expansion in scope will be widespread. Increased efficiency and competitiveness in the foodprocessing industry will be encouraged. The ministry will explore domestic and foreign market opportunities, and a profound contribution will be made to the overall development of the basic industry in British Columbia. A replacement of importation of foodstuffs will be a prime target of my ministry.

This change in the ministry's mandate will be accompanied by a major reorganization to deal more effectively with each sector of agriculture and food. The enlarged mandate will be complemented by a regionalization of ministry services dealing with the primary production of foodstuffs. These programs will be geared to the distinct agricultural make-up of each of the five regions in this province and will

[ Page 4000 ]

be coordinated by five regional directors. Programs related to the processing and distribution sector will be concentrated in the new division called the economics and marketing services branch. They will cover a wide range, from food promotion to market development and economic forecasting. Financial assistance to the processing and distribution sector will be stepped up under part 4 of our ARDSA program and our farm products finance program.

Thus the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will assist in the smooth functioning of the entire food system, offering services equitably among all its sectors to ensure that all parts work well together. A broadened mandate complemented by the regional organization will give the whole industry distinct government representation and service.

Mr. Speaker, I distributed to the members of the Legislature a package and a brochure which outline the new ministry. The title of that package and brochure is "A New Name for a New Decade." I would say to members of the House that we aren't the first to take this approach: Nova Scotia has a Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing, Ontario has a Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the state of California has the Department of Food and Agriculture. So many departments and ministries of agriculture in Canada and other places have realized that they should relate farther beyond the farm gate than they have in the past.

It's more than just a name change, though, Mr. Speaker. I wish that members of the Legislature and the public would recognize that it is a move to modernize the ministry. It's a recognition of services to the primary agriculture industry by regionalization, which will provide fast, efficient service to the farm community and will be able to respond much more quickly to their needs. It's a recognition of the importance of the economic evolution of the industry and its markets, and it will, of course, provide assistance, encouragement and support to that sector of the food industry beyond the farm gate.

With those comments I move second reading of Bill 57.

MRS. WALLACE: We're dealing with a very unusual bill here. I would agree with the minister that it is far-reaching. To coin a phrase that's far from original in this House, Mr. Speaker, it has some awesome...

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sweeping!

MRS. WALLACE: ...far-reaching, sweeping powers. Yes, indeed it does — awesome, sweeping powers.

What the minister has said about expanding the control of the Ministry of Agriculture beyond the production area into the whole food chain is very worthwhile. But when he talks about this bill being used to modernize the ministry or to contribute to the things that he is already doing in those areas, I don't see it in this bill. It is a far-reaching bill, but it deals with something entirely different than the minister has been talking about. I think that particularly in the section where we talk about the purpose of the bill and the powers of the minister, we really are into awesome, sweeping powers. "For purposes relating to agriculture and food the minister may acquire, administer, dispose of, operate on and make improvements to land."

The minister may acquire land. Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to give a legal interpretation of the word "acquire," but I certainly know what that government's interpretation of the word "acquire" was back in 1973 when the Land Commission bill was introduced. Their interpretation at that time was that "acquire" meant expropriation. Is that what this minister means? Because if he does, that is hypocrisy in government. It is absolute hypocrisy in government to make such a fuss for hours and hours on the floor of this Legislature relative to what the New Democratic Party was doing with the Land Commission bill and insist to the degree that the government of the day listened and brought in an amendment that they would acquire by means other than expropriation — which this government removed, incidentally, back in 1977.... It is nothing but hypocrisy to take one stand when you're in opposition and another stand when you're in government. It's very interesting when you think of the hours and hours of debate that went into this Legislature back in 1973, and it is very interesting to look at some of the speeches that were made.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the points that was raised by the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in dealing with this bill was: what happens to the municipal tax base when that minister acquires land? He said: "Mr. Speaker, what is the government going to do by way of paying taxes to municipalities when it buys up large tracts of land within that municipality? Is it going to be a grant in lieu of taxes?"

That was the concern at that point. What is this minister going to do? He said: "Well, it really doesn't mean anything. We're just going to have experimental farms." They have farms now; they don't need this bill to do that. So it must mean something else. If it doesn't mean anything else, it has no business before this Legislature. I think that minister has to tell us exactly what that particular section means and why it's in here. Does it mean he can acquire land by means other than expropriation, or does it mean he can expropriate land?

The now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) spoke for 14 hours, I think, in a filibuster to prevent a bill that did far less than this bill is doing. And here they are, the same government, introducing a bill with those "awesome, sweeping powers" — as he termed them — that deals not only with land, but also with the acquiring of.... "The minister may acquire, administer, operate, make improvements to and dispose of agricultural facilities and equipment." Again, does that mean he can expropriate those? Is that the meaning of this bill? The minister says: "Oh, no, it doesn't mean that. We're just going to have a few more demonstration centres."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's a very strange bill. They can lease stores, elevators, processing plants and product warehouses from other persons. Yet this is the same minister who couldn't save the turkey industry a few months ago and was going to give it all to Cargill. Now here he's going to, be leasing processing plants. It's hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. It's just amazing. I don't understand.

The now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, in speaking in this House on March 20, 1973, said: "I wish I could took in a crystal ball." Well, I wish I could look in a crystal ball, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could look and see whether that minister intends to expropriate the

[ Page 4001 ]

whole Fraser Valley and turn it into one large farm. What is he going to do with that farm? You know, it's not this government's mode of operation to go into the farming business or any other industry. They're opposed to government interference in the marketplace or the business world. So is it his intent to try and modernize agriculture by creating large corporate farms and turning them over to some large corporation like Cargill?

MS. SANFORD: Foreign interests.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, foreign interests. Is that the intent of this bill? You know, the minister really has to answer some questions on this one.

The member for South Peace River went on:

I wish I could look in a crystal ball, so that I could predict more so than I have already. There are certain things that I know, Mr. Speaker, that are going to happen, and they're not good predictions. The things that I predicted are not good, but it's the things that I can't predict that really worry me, and it does really worry me, because there have been far less controversial bills introduced in this Legislature that have had far-reaching effects. But this changes the whole concept of our basis of agriculture, of land use, of industry, of taxation — there is no one in the province of British Columbia that Bill 42 does not affect.

I suggest that if this bill is taken in toto, in the way it is written, there is no one in the province of British Columbia whom this Bill 57 does not affect.

I've talked about acquiring land, and "acquire," according to that government, meant expropriate. I've talked about acquiring agricultural facilities and equipment, and "acquire," according to that government, meant expropriate. It goes on. He can lease stores. Is he going to lease the SuperValu, the Safeway? What is the intent of the bill? What does the minister intend to do? When you read the content of the bill, it just does not relate to what the minister says he's trying to do.

MR. HOWARD: He's going to set up state farming institutes.

MRS. WALLACE: State farming or corporate farming, Mr. Member. My colleague says he's going to set up a state farm. Or is he going to set up a corporate farm? He can not only lease stores; he can lease elevators. Does he have some arrangement with Cargill to lease elevators in British Columbia? Or is he going to lease the elevators that were formerly held by one of his colleagues who sits on that side of the House? He's going to lease processing plants. Well, we didn't see much action as far as Maplewood was concerned, and certainly he was very anxious to got rid of Panco. Why does he want to lease processing plants? We must have some explanations on this. He's going to lease warehouses from other persons, and he's going to buy, store, transport....

He told us the other day — in answer to a question that I asked about transporting feed to Vancouver Island — that he had no jurisdiction, that that was a federal problem. Now he's going to get into the business of transporting food. Talk about awesome, sweeping powers — this bill has them.

In the Legislature during the great filibuster on Bill 42 on March 22, 1973, the hon. member for North Okanagan, now the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is she?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, where is she? She said: "They can go into any piece of land in British Columbia that's privately owned, and they can say: 'I want that land, you're going to accept this price.'" If Bill 42 said that — and I'm not saying it did — if that was the government's interpretation of Bill 42 in 1973, then the opposition has no alternative but to put the same interpretation on Bill 57 in 1980.

The member for North Okanagan went on: "You have no appeal as an individual; you have no right to negotiate that price; you have no right to say I don't want to sell; you only have the right to stay alive if they kick you out, and even that may be questionable." That's what the government thought Bill 42 was going to do. Yet they introduce something that relates not only to land — the same terminology, the same wording — but goes much further than land: processing, stores, transportation, selling, buying, the whole food chain.

MS. BROWN: Totalitarianism.

MRS. WALLACE: That's the very reason why the people of British Columbia will not accept this state control, and they will not accept the airy-fairy, flim-flam explanations given by this government and these members. I don't like to use those words, but that member used those words — "airy-fairy," "flim-flam." To say the very best, that's all we heard from the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced the bill.

"There is the power in this act," continued the member for North Okanagan, "and this government has proven its naked hunger for power and its hell-bent-for-leather attitude to bring about social revolution." Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think this government is trying to bring about social revolution. But what are they trying to bring about by introducing an act like this in the Legislature? State control? A dictatorship? We in the opposition just don't understand what is behind this bill.

I'm very glad to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is in the House. I think there's nothing I like better than to quote back to the Attorney-General some of the words he's used in this Legislature, particularly when he was a Liberal. Here I am quoting back the words of the Attorney-General on March 20, 1973:

We must have farmers on the land, and this government has brought in no legislation which will ensure that the farmer stays on the land...

I wonder what the farmers say about that now, Mr. Attorney-General.

...will replenish its productive capability and will produce the things which we need in this province. There's nothing in this bill that encourages the farmer to stay on the land. On the contrary, once you've locked the farmer into the land, you can only leave him in a position where he's constantly under the fear of domination from government — completely and utterly under the control of the economic condition which he finds himself in today: locked in with his land and locked out of the profits which should come to him from this production from that land.

I suppose this is also what makes this legislation unacceptable, because it's a direct, planned, and unmistakable attack upon individuals in this province, their rights and their freedoms.

If that was true of Bill 42, Mr. Attorney-General, it is ten times true of this act, because it's the exact same words. It will cover far more than just agriculture. It covers agriculture, wholesale processing, transportation, selling, the whole gamut. If Bill 42 were this bad, Mr. Attorney-General, I'm surprised that you are party to bringing in a bill like this. He continues:

[ Page 4002 ]

It's a thinly disguised attempt to dominate the individual. Surprisingly enough, it takes rights away from the citizen and returns them to the Crown.

Those who have been in this House will recognize that the process that we go through each year, each session, is to grant supply to the Crown in exchange for the rights that the Crown extends to the citizens. Yet with this bill we are reversing that trend. This Legislature is being asked to pass legislation which takes away rights from the individual and returns them to the Crown without compensation.

If "acquire" meant expropriation in 1973, according to the Social Credit government, Mr. Speaker, then it must mean that to them now. They are the ones who have introduced this bill.

The Attorney-General continues: "This bill subjects us to increasing centralized control by the government, control that the previous administration never dreamed of." Well, maybe the previous administration didn't dream of it. The present administration is not only dreaming of it, but it's presenting a bill here that goes far beyond what the minister has indicated he is proposing to do.

It's a bill that no one seems to understand. I have had calls from all over this province, asking me what this bill means. I don't know what it means. Certainly the minister didn't tell us what it means when he introduced it. He told us something, but he didn't even relate to the content of this bill. Under this bill he could well move to ensure that the broiler growers, for example.... I have heard that minister indicate that he felt that we should have larger broiler farms because ours weren't economical and they weren't as big as they were in the United States. Is this what he's proposing in the way of modernizing? Is he going to take over some of the broiler farms — expropriate them, if you will — and turn them into one large corporate farm and probably put them under the control of some major foreign corporation to operate them?

Does this spell the end of the family farm, in an attempt to modernize farming? Is that what this minister is going to do with this act? That's what it seems to say. I really can't believe that that's what he intends, but why bring in an act that allows these kinds of controls, this kind of power, if he doesn't intend to use it? What is the reason? Why do we have this bill?

The act goes far beyond the scope of anything the minister indicated when he introduced the bill, It goes completely into what could be either a state control or a corporate control of all agriculture in British Columbia. That's the power that is given in this bill, if it's interpreted to its fullest. And what the minister says it does is completely without regard to the awesome, sweeping powers that the government indicated were included in Bill 42.

To completely change their stand from when they were in opposition to when they are in government certainly represents a very hypocritical point of view. Their hypocrisy, as government, to bring in a piece of legislation like this when they took the stand they did against Bill 42 is one of the most amazing things that we have seen in this Legislature in the five years that I have been here.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, deja vu. This is a nice day in the Legislature of B.C. The only difference is you have an enlightened opposition. The Attorney-General laughs. That group used those phrases, Mr. Speaker. They went around this province talking about the acquisition of land, the dangers of those socialist hordes, and what their intent was. And now they have the same kinds of clauses in this legislation. "The minister may acquire land..." it says. "The minister must report to the cabinet, but must report to the Legislature when practicable...."

Mr. Speaker, what you have here is a bill that I think most thinking people can agree with. But the only thing is that they used these very phrases in the days when we were government to try to hang us....

MR. HOWARD: Just to get into power.

MR. COCKE: Just to get into power at any cost.

They had exactly the same legislative counsel staff in those days as they have now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Virtually the same. One or two have died and one or two have gone on to other rewards.

Mr. Speaker, it was the utilization of phrases out of legislation that took these people all over this province scaring the people to death. I can remember them on hotline show after hotline show talking about the Agricultural Land Commission and all it would do: "take away your watch," "take away your house." All it was suggesting was that we were going to keep agricultural land for agricultural purposes. They haven't changed it all that much since they've been in power.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, they're going to get to it.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. And there'd be more erosion yet if they thought they could get away with it. But, Mr. Speaker, that's it! Let's remember that these kinds of phrases giving the minister the power to acquire land, giving the minister the powers that he's given in this bill, were the political harpoons that they threw for the next couple of years. We listened to filibusters from the then member for Peace River — still the member for South Peace River. In those days they gave him the name "Leatherlungs," because he lasted 14 hours, roughly, debating Bill 42, which gave the minister power to conserve agricultural land for agricultural use, so that the heirs of the people now living wouldn't starve. They used it politically.

And the Attorney-General — we heard some of the statements that he made then — was as wrong in doing what he did then as the rest of that gang. They've seen the error in their judgment, the error of their ways, and we have in place at least some protection for agricultural land in this province. I'm sure that this minister means to do well by this act, but, Mr. Speaker, it's only good fortune that you have an opposition in this province now that doesn't go around and treat responsible legislation in a reprehensible way. What a bunch of political opportunists! What a bunch, when you consider it. They should hang their heads in shame. They should go out and apologize to the people of B.C. and come back'm here a lot more humble than they have been heretofore. I'll never forget the debates and I'll never forget the hours that we listened to all of our intentions. Heaven alone knows that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was the most responsible Agriculture minister this province has ever seen. He did a first-class job and had the confidence of his then constituency with good reason. I'm talking about the agricultural community.

[ Page 4003 ]

MRS. WALLACE: He still has.

MR. COCKE: He very much so still has, because, Mr. Speaker, he didn't act in an irresponsible way, and he didn't use legal phrases to lampoon his political enemies. Take a lesson — harpoon a gang of thuds. No, both ways of doing business.... Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when we take what we did for a piece of legislation, it makes this pale and insignificant in terms of its importance to future generations in this province. It's no wonder we have to say a few words about this bill and about those people who spoke on the other one.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, if the bill had an accurate title, it would be called "The Socred Hypocrisy (1980) Act." If ever a government could be accused of absolutely hypocritical statements and dealings and of a demonstrably hypocritical record, it would be this government as defined by this bill. There are good causes from time to time when the government must be granted the right to acquire land; there are good reasons from time to time when that right. especially in the agricultural field, might supersede the right of individuals, but when those reasons are offered, they must be done so in a credible way. In this field, Social Credit has no credibility at all. They have instead only the pale and ridiculous offering of their own hypocrisy, when debating a bill which contained, in one phrase, strikingly similar language just a few years ago.

The chief hypocrisy must be borne by those who were members of the Liberal Party at that time; it was believed at that time that they at least were sincere. It is observed at this time that they would prefer not to hear read back into the records their own comments. It would not, I suppose, be a nice thing to read back the comments of the now Attorney-General, when he talked then in a totally misinformed, misguided and wrong way about the spirit, the intentions and, as it turned out, the applications of Bill 42 — our bill — to save the agricultural option in this province. It would, I suppose, not be fair to read back to him certain of his comments made on March 20, 1973.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: If you were right then, why didn't you amend our own legislation now that you've had the chance? You were not right then and you haven't amended it, that's why.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Oh, come on, Allan. You know you don't believe that; you know no one else believes it and we know you don't believe it either. Anyone who can jump from the Liberals to the Socreds can rationalize any other thing.

However, the point remains that this bill, its language and its intentions epitomize the utter hypocrisy of Social Credit and the utter willingness of that dishonourable coalition to say anything and do anything in opposition, and ignore what they said and did when in opposition while back in government. Can you imagine the hysterical screams from certain members opposite had we brought in a bill to establish, potentially, the corporate control and the state control of the agricultural industry that this bill, potentially, could do? What if the government of the day said: "But you know, you've misread our intentions, you don't understand what's in our minds''? What if the government of the day had replied and said: "What an unfair criticism! Why are you looking at the language of the law? You should be looking instead at the spirit of our intent." Well. of course, that was not an acceptable excuse then, nor do we find it an acceptable excuse now. What matters in the British system is the language of the law its precision, clarity and specificity.

What also matters in our system — somewhat more subtly, somewhat more difficult to apprehend — is the honour of the people who make certain arguments from time to time. The Socreds, in this bill, demonstrate that they have no honour — none. The Socreds, in this bill, demonstrate they have no serious commitment to principle — none whatsoever. Were this not the case, we would be unable to find in Hansard page after page of quotations from them, when they were in opposition. attacking the power — as it was put in Bill 42 originally — to acquire land for agricultural purposes. This bill confirms irrefutably the hypocritical attitudes and the hypocritical intentions of all those opposite who attacked our agricultural bill when we brought it in as government and who now try to sneak through this House a bill which offers far vaster powers. far more sweeping and awesome authority, to the hand of the Crown. What hypocrisy this bill represents!

Let me illustrate again the fact that we agree, as a matter of the public interest, that it may be a good thing, from time to time, for the Crown to be able to obtain land for the benefit and the purpose of the public interest. We don't dispute that principle at all. nor are we such hypocrites as to pretend to dispute it in order to make a point or two on a bill like this. We don't dispute that point: the Crown must have the inalienable right to act in the public interest, which may occasionally involve obtaining land for parks, for sewage treatment programs, and for any number of other purposes, when the public interest is thereby best served. We don't object to that. But to read back the speeches of these Socreds — or Liberals, once — and to read what they screamed and ranted then, opposed to any form of social intervention in this field, opposed to any form of Crown resolve to perpetuate and maintain the agricultural option, opposed to any attempt at all to secure the ability of generations to come to feed themselves by protecting farmland against speculators, developers and those who would pave Victoria to Sidney and Vancouver to Chilliwack with parking lots and K Marts, is to read the record of hypocrisy. One wonders why they would have made such a fuss then about the language "to acquire" and why they make no fuss now about their own bill, which clearly, as some might read it, does the same thing they were purportedly and hypocritically opposed to.

MRS. WALLACE: And a whole lot more.

MR. BARBER: It does a great deal more, and that was most ably illustrated by my colleague the agriculture critic and member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). She demonstrated clearly that in the language and the application of this bill the powers the government wishes to give to itself are far greater than any of those the Socreds then imagined were being granted by our Land Commission Act.

The real issue is not singly whether or not the Crown shall have the right to make a social intervention in the agricultural industry. On this side of the House we believe it should because, you see, that's the public interest. Therein lies the

[ Page 4004 ]

public benefit; those things protect the public good. Now the minister for Cargill may not see it that way; the minister for Cargill apparently has a different agenda. Our agenda as New Democrats at least has been consistent these many years. The agenda of the Socreds consistently has been only this: any opportunity to gain a point, no matter how contradictory, how hypocritical, or how much in the long run it shortchanges the public interest, is fine by them.

Let me read the ghost of Hansard past to the now Attorney-General. He said, referring to our legislation — Bill 42: "This bill subjects us to increasing centralized control by the government, control...."

MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

MR. BARBER: Well, it's recorded as being said by "Mr. Williams."

...that the previous administration never even dreamed of. I suggest that with Bill 42 we are taking steps towards a government which is counter-democratic.

He went on to say something even more ridiculous:

I trust we aren't reaching the position where in Canada we are saying as we pass bills of this kind that the provincial governments can, through some property legislation, abolish rights and establish some kind of "ism," with the possible result that we may have in Canada ten separate provincial governments, each with their own ten separate philosophies and separate from the government of Canada. Is this where we're heading with this kind of legislation? I suggest that we are.

He is a member of a government which is the third most separatist government in the country, after Quebec and Alberta. He is a member of a government which has engaged, systematically and insidiously, in more Canada-bashing than any other government but two, Alberta and Quebec. He no doubt would have it the case that we not bother to look up Hansard and read back to him his presumably — but no longer — sincere comments about ten provinces going their own ways and attacking the integrity of the government of Canada.

MR. BARRETT: You're making him out to be a hypocrite. You can't do that.

MR. BARBER: One can't do anything or say anything more damning about the hypocrisy of this government than to simply read back to them their own words. If anyone makes anyone else a hypocrite, it is the verbatim record of what these guys said then and the clear evidence of their silence now. If they believed then that the government should not have the awesome, sweeping powers to intervene socially in the ownership and control of land to preserve the agricultural option, let them stand up and attack Bill 57 today. If they don't stand up and attack it, this is surely hypocrisy.

If they believed then what they said then about the awesome, sweeping powers given under Bill 42, let them at least be honourably consistent and vote against Bill 57 today. If they're not prepared to do that it can only mean two things: (1) they've changed their minds; or, (2) they have not changed their hypocrisy and they remain willing to say anything and do anything to get into and stay in power.

MR. BARRETT: I think it's 2, Charles.

MR. BARBER: The Leader of the Opposition thinks it's option 2. It may be.

This bill gives the Agriculture minister power more profound, more unchallengeable and more arbitrary than any bill ever gave any other Minister of Agriculture in the history of this province. The arbitrariness of this bill, the lack of legal challenge for its application, and the clear hypocrisy of that government opposite — Liberals, Socreds, Tories, and members of Action Canada, as was the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) at one point in his varied political career — make it perfectly clear to any rational people that if this government will institutionalize their own hypocrisy through a bill like this today, we can only anticipate what wonders we may see tomorrow.

We wonder, for instance, about a bill to rationalize and justify the unprecedented overruns which Social Credit has foisted upon the people of British Columbia. Perhaps they will simply write a bill, and after writing the bill — called Socred Institutionalizing of Their Own Comments Concerning Government Overruns Act — we will then no longer be the victims of the sordid spectacle of more overruns coming from this group than ever came from any other government at any time in B.C.'s history. You see, if they don't do that, Mr. Speaker, we can only conclude that they are content to live with their own hypocrisy or would prefer that the record had been erased and no one could remember it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your blue jeans.

MR. BARBER: Put yours back in yours. They're holding up your head and you know you want to fall asleep.

Mr. Speaker, we do not hear the formerly esteemed member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) getting up and ranting in a completely — I should be polite — irrational way about the awesome, sweeping powers that his own colleague will want to have. He may argue that it is because he knows his colleague would never abuse the powers, and therefore he has confidence. But if he argues that, he thereby disfranchises the whole notion of written law and not men providing the governance in British Columbia. It is the law and not the man which is debated. It is the law and not the individual which is upheld. It is the law and not the intentions of the minister which the court must examine. So even though the member for South Peace River may currently like the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — even though they were respectively Socred and Liberal at one time — the point remains that we cannot judge this act on the basis of the individual who administers it. It can only be judged on the basis of the language which it contains. If the Socreds were sincere in 1973, they should surely oppose their own bill today, because the language of this bill creates powers far more awesome, far more numerous and far less challengeable in the courts than ever the powers allegedly granted under Bill 42. However, if the Socreds support this bill today, what they will have done, for all time, is proven their own hypocrisy in 1973.

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, I'd like to talk about one phrase in the current legislation that seemed to attract so much attention from the members of the opposition — the three opposition parties in the days when Bill 42 was introduced and being discussed. That was the phrase that gave the Land Commission the authority to acquire land — exactly the same authority that is included in exactly the same words in the legislation before us now.

The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has just left the House. I can recall him — he was a member of the

[ Page 4005 ]

five-man Liberal party at the time — speaking out very eloquently and at great length about the powers that the government was taking unto itself when it included in this legislation the authority to acquire land. I did my best to reassure him, on the advice of legislative counsel, that giving the authority to acquire land excluded the authority to expropriate. Unless the words in there gave the Land Commission, the minister or whatever the authority to expropriate, then indeed that authority was not present in the legislation. But that kind of reassurance didn't interest the then member of the Liberal Party, the current Attorney-General. It didn't interest the then member of the Conservative Party in the House, the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It didn't interest the hon. member for South Peace River, now the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). They weren't interested in logic or truth; they were interested in practising what my colleague for Victoria calls hypocrisy in government, although then it was hypocrisy in opposition.

They knew the legislation did not include the authority to expropriate, yet they talked in this House hour after hour. The hon. member for South Peace River at that time is said to have talked for 14 hours. I thought it was 44; it seemed like 44. But perhaps it was only 14. The hon. member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) at that time even went so far as to read The Little Red Hen in order to stretch out the debate as long as possible, hoping that the government would withdraw legislation that included in it less authority than is now included in the bill before us. The then leader of the Conservative Party in the House moved a want-of-confidence motion in the Minister of Agriculture because of this legislation.

The then leader of the Conservative Party, out of the House — he didn't have a seat but he was the leader of the party — debated the legislation with me at meetings in Vancouver, at UBC, and in the Okanagan. and always dwelled on the awesome, sweeping powers in this legislation that would give the government the power to expropriate his lot in British Properties. He knew it didn't do that. The members in the House who are still here who were here in those days knew that it gave the government no such authority, but they weren't interested in the truth of the legislation before them; they were interested in making political capital out of the legislation that was before them. That was all they were interested in.

The member for Victoria talks about hypocrisy in government; then it was hypocrisy in opposition. They had absolutely no concern for what the legislation was trying to do, although they did say they believed in the principle of preserving farmland, That was as far as they went in supporting the legislation. They certainly didn't believe in the legislation. They didn't believe in what the government was trying to do because they offered no constructive suggestions, only obstructionism. They did it in the Legislature to the greatest of their ability. They did it outside of the Legislature. They organized marches on the Legislature and a demonstration on the front lawns to try to defeat that legislation. Now they're bringing in legislation that has more in the way of awesome, sweeping powers than the legislation they were then so violently opposed to. There doesn't seem to be any word that would be appropriate other than hypocrisy in government. The people who were so violently in opposition to the authority given to the Land Commission in that particular legislation are now standing up and voting in favour of legislation that is much worse from the point of view of taking power out of the hands of the members of the Legislature and concentrating that power in the hands of cabinet and the Minister of Agriculture himself.

Mr. Speaker, time has certainly wrought many changes. I can just imagine the opposition that those same members, here still in the House, would be putting up today if this kind of legislation were introduced by anyone other than themselves. This legislation may well serve the farmers of the province, but I can't imagine it serving the province's farmers well. It may well serve them, but I can't imagine it serving them well as long as this administration sits in office and the Minister of Agriculture introducing this legislation is the one responsible for handling that legislation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to read into the record, because I think it's very important for us to know what these powers that the minister is giving unto himself in this bill really mean. I think we should be grateful, actually, to the government members for telling us and explaining to us what these powers really mean. So for the benefit of the new members in the back bench in particular, who have been strangely silent throughout this entire session.... I think that they would certainly benefit from hearing some of the words of the brilliant members of their own caucus.

One of the gifted children that sit over there has got to be the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I think we should hear his interpretation of what these powers really mean. He says, and I am quoting from his speech on March 26, 1973, in the Legislature, referring specifically to Bill 42 and the exact.... It is not even the exact wording of the present legislation, because it doesn't go as far. He said:

There isn't any way that the public of British Columbia is going to stand behind a government and its supporters when the kind of legislation which denies the right of the little man is being brought into this House. And if there's one thing that stands supreme government after government, policy after policy, it's the rights of the little man. When a government is so big and so confident and so arrogant that it forgets that principle, the little man reminds that government at the next election.

So be it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, was the minister going to close the debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BARRETT: Doesn't the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) wish to speak on this bill? Doesn't the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) or Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) wish to speak on this? Will none of those voices which fought so vigorously against lighter legislation brought in by a previous government now stand up and fight this bill? Are we witnessing simple crass hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker? Not this day.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, we are.

MR. BARRETT: No! I thought that my colleagues were just tweaking noses — that there would be a rush to the defence of the little man, which the former opposition member, when he was a Liberal Party member, said would take place. Surely not the car dealer from South Peace River, that great freedom fighter who got on hotlines and attacked the

[ Page 4006 ]

vicious socialism of my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — surely this day is not going to see his courage fade. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), interspersing his fights with sasquatches, came down to give his voice, too, to the defence of freedom and the rights of property owners. How about the silver-tongued orator from Saanich and the Islands, who used to be a Tory and who would stand up and fight against this kind of bill? Don't let cynicism overcome me, Mr. Speaker. Please let these members get up and repeat their old speeches that they gave against the hoary socialists at the gate who were going to take property away by acquiring it.

Let's hear it from all the gang over there. The whole force that brought them together in a coalition was against this kind of legislation. Their purpose at unity meetings throughout this province was to stop this phrase of "acquiring land" by the state. Even when they were working in credit unions up in Penticton as sober citizens in that community, this legislation, if brought in by the NDP, would have scared the hair right out of their heads.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No! I wondered what happened.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They came down here to fight in the trenches, and what are they doing? They're bringing in worse legislation. Thank goodness the citizens of British Columbia are asleep this August day, so they don't see the hypocrisy.

I remember walking down the street after listening to their attacks on us, and citizens coming up and talking about hotline shows. I remember one hotliner who said: "Don't take the guns out to Victoria yet. Don't assault the socialists yet."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he here in the Legislature?

MR. BARRETT: No. Where is he now? He was here earlier in question period, talking about public appeals where everybody is invited in, except those who weren't notified.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I hope none of this ever goes in the classroom, so little children in this province will see the hypocrisy of Social Credit. I wouldn't want little children in this province to read about this government attacking the line "acquiring property" and then bringing in this bill themselves. Are you a secret commie, Mr. Minister? Are you really a card-carrying red-baiter who, now you're in power, ripped up your card and you're acting worse than what you accused people of being in government? Mr. Speaker, cynicism, hypocrisy....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or do you become what you hate?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's really interesting. He sits next to the former mayor from Surrey, who used to make speeches when he was a Liberal. He sought the Liberal leadership, attacking the socialist attempt to grab land. He believes in greater democracy than the rest of his colleagues. He wants to give office spaces the right to vote, he believes so much in property. Now you're going to have legislation that seizes office spaces, and somebody else is going to vote for that land that's been seized under this bill. Aren't you going to defend that?

There's the other fellow from Langley sitting over there, holding up the books and the benches. Those fuming, fiery speeches he used to give on.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, his morality was unimpeachable.

They used to get up here, and they made Richard Nixon look like a piker. They made Joe McCarthy look like an amateur, on this kind of legislation. Joe McCarthy would only ruin careers, but these guys would ruin everything now that they're in power.

Mr. Speaker, is there anything in Beauchesne, in May or in Standing Orders that's against hypocrisy? There are rules against everything else. I read all through May, and there's nothing against hypocrisy. I went all the way through Beauchesne, and there's nothing against hypocrisy. The only rule is against using the word: you can't call an individual a hypocrite. But it's not necessary in this case; the whole group — as a group psychosis — are hypocrites. All hypocrites — the whole works of them; every one a hypocrite. You remember Huey Long, when he ran the state of Louisiana and he had that song, "Everyone a King"? We're going to paraphrase it in British Columbia: "Everyone a hypocrite in Social Credit domain; everyone a hypocrite as long as in power we remain." Do anything, say anything; a little fib here, a little exaggeration there; rip up party cards; change principles as you walk across the floor.

The one guy who's got a little bit of conscience left, who has yet to praise the Premier publicly, took off in the middle of this debate as soon as the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) read his excerpts from Hansard. The rest of you guys are so jaded it doesn't matter. But the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), still struggling with 50 additional copies of the latest editorial in the Vancouver Sun, trying to figure out whether it kicked him or praised him, drifted out of the chamber as my friend from Victoria was reading his old speech back. After all, a West Vancouver lawyer doesn't like to be reminded of what he said a week ago. It's only politics, Mr. Speaker. After all, what's politics? It's just a big funny game. You say anything and do anything to come to power; once you have power you grab the same things that you attacked, and you do it worse.

I'm too old now to regain any of the purity I once had as an adolescent. I'm too old and over the hill now as I reach my fiftieth year to think that there's any purity left in the world. But, lo, that there be some citizens in this province who actually believe this group in government as a group that tells the truth! Let us protect those citizens; let us expunge from the record what is happening here today; let us not expose our citizens to this level of hypocrisy. I don't want our children to think there's no hope except by crossing floors, ripping up cards and parties, joining any group and saying anything to get power. Surely cynicism doesn't go that far, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Come back, Allan, wherever you are, and give us that speech against this bill. Garde, do you hear me? Turn up the volume on your set. I'm calling you back here today to defend the right. Would that minister come in from outer space on his dish — the other member from Vancouver–Point Grey — to give us his speech to defend the little people? Let a 50-year-old man have heart and understand that hypocrisy is only a game. Please give me something to go home with today and feel a little bit better. Or were you all fibbing, and lying, and doing anything just to get elected?

[ Page 4007 ]

MR. HOWARD: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Frank. Do you believe that, Frank?

MR. HOWARD: I do.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! There is no hope left, Mr. Speaker. It is a government of hypocrites. Tch! Tch! Tch! If I could use the word "phonies," Mr. Speaker, I'd use that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just wanted to take the opportunity to respond to a fairly good act on the opposition side of the House, and maybe by the time I'm through some of them on the other side will be rather quiet.

This is the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act — a positive move in the 1980s to give better identity to the agriculture and food industries in this province. I would have thought that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who sat long hours on the standing committee for agriculture, Mr. Speaker — along with yourself.... We worked long, hard hours; we travelled around the province. One of the recommendations that came out of that study was that the Ministry of Agriculture should be more involved in the entire food chain. I do recall that the recommendation was that we should look to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that is what we've attempted to do.

I just wanted to point out that the opposition has zeroed in on one specific area, to which I will respond; but I wanted to make the House aware of the importance of the other sections of the act and the reasons for them, and the fact that we were responding to a great deal of work that was done in the past with regard to modernizing this ministry.

Mr. Speaker, they have attacked the words "acquire land."

MR. BARRETT: No, we were just reading your own words back.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, I guess we all look back in history and can come up with some pretty quotable quotes. I wasn't here at the time...

MR. BARRETT: Well, now you are.

HON. MR. HEWITT: ...but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They're picking on me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Naw, we wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to tell you that the small opposition — the Social Credit opposition, the Liberal opposition and the Conservative opposition — that was against that large majority party when they were in government fought tooth and nail to ensure that amendments were made to the Land Commission Act. They know over there that they had to make amendments because of the strong, hard fight that that small opposition made against them, Mr. Speaker. They know that their act, as it was originally written, gave control of the people on the land and not just the land. They had zoning in that act. They were going to control what was going to be done. They were after the people; they weren't after the preservation of farmland. It was socialism all the way down the line, and they all know that, Mr. Speaker. Greenbelts.

MR. BARRETT: What about this bill?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to talk about the acquisition or.... I think the bill actually reads: "For purposes relating" — relating, Mr. Speaker — "to agriculture and food, the minister may acquire, administer, dispose of, operate on, and make improvements to land."

MR. BARRETT: Same section?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Same section. Well, if there was a real concern.... Let me quote you the Agricultural Land Commission Act as it is today: "For these objects the commission has power by itself or in cooperation with Canada, any of its agencies or corporations, a ministry of the province" — and bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Agricultural Land Commission reports to me as the Minister of Agriculture — "a municipality or regional district, to acquire or dispose of land." Itos in there, Mr. Speaker; it's in the act at the present time.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you were opposed to. Now you've got it. Ding! Ding!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Agriculture....

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not confused. The point that is being made here is the fact that the act of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the broad ministry act. The Agricultural Land Commission Act does give the power to acquire and dispose of land, by itself or in cooperation or conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Speaker, so that the members over there aren't panicked too much, let me just relate what a number of ministry acts state. I will quote from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act: ''To carry out his duties, functions and power relating to energy" — you will recall that my act relates to agriculture and food — "the minister may acquire and dispose of property." The Ministry of Forests Act gives the minister the power to acquire property: "To carry out his duties, powers and functions the minister may, on behalf of the Crown...acquire land." The Ministry of Lands. Parks and Housing Act states: "For the purposes of this act the minister may acquire land." The Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act states that to carry out his duties, powers and functions, the minister may acquire and dispose of land.

Some of the members talked about expropriation and whether this "acquire'' means expropriation. I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) mentioned this. In regard to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). he has the right to acquire land: in that particular act, for the purposes of highways in this

[ Page 4008 ]

province, the Minister of Transportation and Highways has the explicit power to expropriate. I point out, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of some of those members across the way that there is a difference in regard to expropriation and the acquisition of land.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am taking the time of the House, and I know the opposition has had good fun with this. I think it is good for the record.... I'm sure some people do read Hansard and I'd like to make sure that the story is told correctly, and not on a politically experienced basis.

In regard to our Agricultural Produce Grading Act, there are reasons for section 5(2), which deals with the acquisition of products and the leasing of buildings, and the member of Cowichan-Malahat is fully aware of the reasons for these things. We can assist in an economic emergency. We have done so in the past; I can give you two instances. In the grape industry we had a problem a number of years ago, and through the Grape Marketing Board we provided funds or a guarantee, and they purchased the product. It meant that instead of having the grapes fall off the vines because they didn't have a market to go to, we were able to crush those grapes and hold the concentrate. Instead of doing it by the back door we are giving the Ministry of Agriculture and Food the ability to step in in an emergency situation to acquire agricultural products that may well not have a home. The recent turkey processing situation at Maplewood is an indication of how we can be of assistance in an emergency situation.

I think the statement was made that this act would spell the end of the family farm. Mr. Speaker, this act is to assist the development of agriculture in this province, not just at the primary level but at the food level.

As I mentioned before, the Agricultural Land Commission gives the ability to acquire land. The commission reports to the Ministry of Agriculture and, in conjunction with the ministry, can acquire land. That is the reason why we have to have that ability under our ministry's act.

I saw the righteous first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) stand up and go through one of his speeches — I guess he picks up all the research material from the member for Cowichan-Malahat — and talk about hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition does the same thing.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, could you bring this unruly House to order? I listened to them; I'd like them to listen to me. It's as simple as that.

MR. LEA: But you're not saying enough.

MR. HOWARD: Jim, you're trying to put us to sleep.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm trying to exhaust you with reason. I know that's very difficult over there for you people.

MR. LEA: You haven't got any.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Minister of Agriculture does have the floor, and we should afford him every courtesy.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that this bill attempts to assist the agricultural community. If we wished to look at a demonstration agricultural centre, in conjunction with the Land Commission or by ourselves at the Ministry of Agriculture, we wouldn't have the power in the act to do just that. That's one of the things I look to in the future. If we are going to progress in this province with regard to the production of food, then I want to be number one in this country in research and development and demonstration projects, not number two or number ten. This act gives us the ability to do just that. It says "acquisition of land," no different than many other acts. It doesn't say "expropriation of land," and the members opposite know it. I guess a little humour has been expressed by the opposition today.

With those comments, I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must caution all hon. members that this is the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia. Members would be well advised that language that has been used, possibly loosely and in humour, should not be carried to an excess.

Bill 57, Ministry of Agriculture and Food 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: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The changes proposed in this bill are by and large administrative. The bill would move the definitions of classes of insurance from the act to regulations, which would permit more immediate response to demands for new classes of insurance. Another part of the bill would move the investment powers and restrictions from the act to the regulations, once again to permit the industry to meet changing market conditions. A section of the bill would provide for appeals to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission and further to the court of appeal. This change is consistent with our approach of ensuring accountability and adequate avenues for appeal. It's also in keeping with our view toward an expanded role for the commission as the appeal body for most of our regulatory statutes. Other amendments within the bill include anniversary licensing, minimum liability requirements of motor vehicles to be consistent with those required in the insurance motor vehicle act, it would clarify hearing procedures before the superintendent, and provide protection against any action to the members of the insurance council in the good faith performance of their duties.

That is the principle and some details of a very small bill. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I can't help but agree with the minister. To some extent this is a small bill, but this bill is consistent with

[ Page 4009 ]

many of the bills that we've seen this year. It is removing what were legislative powers into the hands of the cabinet. This government, if they had their way, I'm sure, would remove all the powers of the Legislature. The bill is relatively inconsequential, so on that basis we're not going to oppose it. But I just wanted to draw to the attention of the House that there is the tendency to remove areas that once were legislative areas to the cabinet, as we've seen in a number of other acts this year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 40 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 40, Insurance Amendment Act, 1980, 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. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Section 4 negatived.

On section 5.

MR. HOWARD: There are a couple of provisions that I want to inquire about. It seems to say that "the Minister may grant, or otherwise create over Crown land, the title to which is not registered under the Land Title Act, an ease ment...including therein a right to flood." Then, when we turn the page and look at subsection (6)(a), it points out that this particular section is retroactive to the beginning of time. In other words, this section is retroactive in its application and applies to all easements over Crown land "whenever created." The implication of this is that some error was made with respect to easements in the past or with respect to including the right to flood, as is under subsection (1)(b). That brings to my mind, because flooding of Crown land has some pretty formidable consequences — and there are are many areas in the province which have been flooded over a period of time.... But the force of what the minister is asking us to do is to go back, presumably, to the time when British Columbia became a part of Confederation in 1871 and say that all easements which have been granted from that time forward to now shall be covered by this particular section. I think it requires some specific or detailed explanation as to just what the reason is that we should have retroactive legislation — back decades to some unknown time into the past. Could the minister explain in some precision and detail just what's involved here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there was some doubt about the legality of some of these easements. Based on that, it has been deemed necessary to ensure by this amendment that these easements that have been granted by the Crown are in fact legal under common law.

MR. HOWARD: That part is clear from the clause — that that's what you're doing. There's something unsure in the dim past and you now want to straighten it all out. I was asking for some details about specific areas that he can talk about. Is it every easement that's been granted? Does it just relate to power poles of Hydro, or is it just for flooding? Are any of the lands flooded by the Aluminum Company of Canada pursuant to the agreement made. In 1950, I believe it was, in doubt with respect to this? Is this what you're seeking to do?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Chairman. Essentially we'd be talking about natural gas and oil pipelines — feeder lines to a main trunk line. That's essentially the major problem that we've discovered here. In the alienation of our Crown lands we want to ensure that these rights-of-way are in fact protected.

MR. HOWARD: Well, it does say, in 1(b), that the minister may grant easements "for the operation and maintenance of the grantee's undertaking, including a right to flood." Because it includes a right to flood, that seems the sort of extension of it — to specify the right to flood; in other words putting the right to flood as a separate authority outside of the right just simply to run a pipeline over land. It's that right to flood that, because it's an exceptional reference, needs some examination. Is that in there for any specific purpose? Why don't you just say "easements" — period?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would have to suggest that it's in there to protect easements that have already been allocated, in the event of flooding.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, would the minister advise the House regarding the change in the easements between dominant and servient tenements? Is that a way of linking up parcels without making any improvements upon the parcels? In other words, is it a way of connecting lots without. making improvements on those lots?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't answer that one.

MR. HANSON: As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) points out, this particular clause seems to deal with a specific case where there may have been flooding over Crown land that wasn't authorized. Are you aware of specific flooding over Crown land that was not authorized in some way?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no.

MR. HANSON: So this particular clause is not to deal with any present problem? Is that what you are telling the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No. Mr. Chairman, it's to ensure the legal state of easements that are presently in place, and

[ Page 4010 ]

future easements as well. There appears to be some uncertainty.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could advise us why he needs that power retroactively, including the right to flood. What is the purpose of that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The emphasis here, Mr. Chairman, is not on the right to flood; the emphasis is to ensure that easements which have been granted heretofore are, in fact, legal easements. This amendment ensures that the easements that have been granted in the past have legal status.

MR. HANSON: We don't seem to be getting through to the minister. When the bill was presented and debated in principle, the debate was very short. We served notice on the minister that we wanted specific information on what sort of problems this language was to address, and he hasn't brought that forward. I'm certainly not satisfied with his reply. The language of the clause deals retroactively with the flooding of Crown land. We're asking: in what locations? What specific problems is he solving here?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The retroactivity has no bearing on previous flooding.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like the record to show that the opposition is not satisfied with the answer given on section 5.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 7, the second member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to section 6. I'd like to see clarification from the minister on section 6(c) regarding section 214 of the Land Title Act. Could he clarify for me what the purpose of that language is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 6 has passed, but perhaps the minister....

HON. MR. CHABOT: This is a technical amendment that ensures rights-of-way that are reserved out of a grant — that is, a Crown grant must be registered as a charge in the land titles office. It also relieves the Crown from the requirement of stating that the right-of-way is necessary for its undertaking, because rights of this kind are normally reserved for the benefit of the public rather than for government purposes.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. HANSON: Section 11(6) states: "The requirement in section 214(1) of the Land Title Act that a statutory right-of-way be for the purpose necessary for the operation and maintenance of a grantee's undertaking does not apply where the grantee is the Crown." Could he advise the House what specific problem that is addressing? In other words, could he give us some examples of where the grantee is the Crown in that instance?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I would think that a highway would be applicable here — an easement for a right-of-way for a highway.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we're at a bit of a loss, because we thought we were going to get some detailed information. When the minister presented this bill, an acknowledgment was made that this was a bill with a number of intents, that each individual clause was to deal with a specific problem. Therefore there could be no debate on second reading, because it was impossible to find any uniform, homogeneous principle in the bill; it was an amalgam of various principles. Here we are in committee stage, acting in good faith, asking the minister for detailed information on the kinds of problems that this bill is attempting to resolve, and we're not getting any answers whatsoever. So what are we to do, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, essentially what we're saying here is that the Crown is in a different category, I guess, than the private developer is. But the notes which I have here are that this amendment is a technical one, and relieves the government from the requirement of the Land Title Act to state that a statutory right-of-way acquired by it is necessary for its undertaking. Most statutory rights-of-way acquired by the government are for the benefit of the public, necessitated by the new Land Title Act which effectively replaced the Land Registry Act.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

Sections 13 and 14 negatived.

Title approved.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: With amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, there is no amendment there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill has been altered and amended.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the motion would be that the committee rise, report the bill incomplete without amendment. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 13, Land Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to private bills.

Second reading of Bill PR 402, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4011 ]

PENSION PLANS
(I.W.A.-FOREST INDUSTRY)
MERGER VALIDATION ACT

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring this bill forward for second reading. I am sure you understand my pleasure, as a member of the International Woodworkers of America, in doing so.

Just briefly, prior to 1973 there were three pension plans in the British Columbia IWA-forest industry certified areas: the northern interior, southern interior and coastal IWA operations. In 1973, under the guidance of Jack Munro, president of the International Woodworkers of America.... Mr. Munro insisted that a committee be established to look at the possibility of merging the plans.

One of the problems with the plan prior to that was that people working in the northern interior couldn't move down to the coast without suffering loss of pension, and a person working in the industry couldn't move from the southern interior up to the northern interior without suffering loss of pension — there were no portability arrangements.

In 1973 the industry agreed that mutual benefits could be achieved through the merger of the three regional plans, as a result of a series of comprehensive studies carried out to provide detailed documentation of benefits to be obtained from such a merger.

Mr. Speaker, I can move now to describe some of the benefits that can be obtained from this merger plan. Again I would like to take this opportunity to give full credit to Jack Munro, regional president of the International Woodworkers of America, and to industry for their role in furthering this excellent merger.

Mr. Speaker, 91,000 woodworkers in British Columbia and western Canada are covered by this merger plan, 95 percent of whom are in British Columbia. In regard to the specific benefits of the merger plan, surely most noteworthy of all would be the one to ensure portability between various operations for all IWA woodworkers in western Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, the three pension plans are well designed to accommodate regional variations within the province rather than to detract.... However, the plan did not enable IWA operations to relocate freely from one region to another. The merger continues at the present time its regional detractions, while at the same time it ensures that every worker covered by the plan has the benefit of moving from one region in the province, without suffering loss of pension.

Another benefit worth noting is that the merger will reduce the administrative costs. Similarly, a further improved aspect of the merger is that there will be a reduction in the actuarial costs of the plan.

To conclude, further summarizing the points, the merger resulted in intense collective bargaining negotiations between the International Woodworkers of America and the forest industry. The merger is now part of a certified master agreement covering all IWA certified operations in western Canada.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Jack Munro, regional president of the International Woodworkers of America, Mr. Jack Washburn of the International Woodworkers of America, Mr. Dave Gunderson, executive director of North Cariboo Forest Labour Relations; Mr. John Todman, president of Interior Forest Labour Relations Ltd.; Mr. Keith Bennett, president of Forest Industrial Relations; Steven Stackhouse from the Ministry of Labour; and Geoffrey Calvert, a world-renowned actuary, the plan's actuary.

Mr. Chairman, I move second reading.

MR. HANSON: Listening to the member for Kootenay. I thought for a moment we were on a telethon, while he was listing all the names of the individuals in the IWA executive. Obviously, the opposition supports this bill, but in no way does this opposition take credit for this bill. This is the result of collective bargaining between the IWA and the Council ofForest Industries. It was won at the bargaining table after long years. The benefits are obvious. The forest industry workers lacked portability in their pension benefits as they changed jobs, from region to region or employer to employer, We're very happy that this has now come into effect: that people working in the forest industry throughout the western region are going to be able to move without losing pension credits. That is to their credit, and we applaud it. But in no way should it be self-serving for members of this Legislature to try to assume credit for something that was won at the bargaining table separate and apart from this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's a member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Victoria. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing says that he's a member, and we know that. However. I would like to point out that the forest industry pension plan was designed by one Dennis Cocke. I'd just like you to....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It's not a bad plan. There's a little pride of authorship. I just thought I'd throw that in as kind of a wind-up for today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it very clear that the Pension Plans (IWA-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act was a tool of the president of the International Woodworkers of America, Jack Munro, and the forest industry negotiations which started in 1973.

In closing, in compliance with standing, order 106, I would like to table a true copy of the plan.

Leave granted.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill PR 402, Pension Plans (IWA-Forest Industry) Merger Validation 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. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill PR 403, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been through the private bills committee and has been considered by all sides of the House in that committee.

Cultus Lake Park is a 620-acre parcel of land that lies outside organized municipal territory. It was owned jointly

[ Page 4012 ]

by the city of Chilliwack and the district of Chilliwack, which have now become the district of Chilliwack, but it is not within municipal borders. Although the park area originally provided only summer cabins and recreational facilities, many of the dwellings have become permanent residences over the years since World War II. Some 65 percent of the lease lots in the park now have permanent year-round residents, and only 35 percent are used just in the summer.

Because of its unusual status as municipally-owned land outside municipal boundaries, the park area received its own form of government under the Cultus Lake Park Act of 1932. This act basically provided a parks board which still runs the affairs of the community. The five-man board is elected by the voters of Chilliwack at the present time, thus giving no voice to the residents of the park itself. The parks board established in 1932 provided appropriate representation in the days when no one had a permanent principal residence at Cultus Lake. The municipalities were the landlords and controlled the managing board.

The 1980 bill to amend the park act recognizes the imbalance of this situation and creates two more seats on the board to be filled by elected representatives of the Cultus Lake leaseholders.

Representation of the residents is particularly called for in view of the park board's statutory authority to levy taxation-like charges on the leaseholders.

The other major change proposed in this bill gives the park board the authority to enter into 21-year leases. At present the board can only grant one-year leases and renew them annually.

Mr. Speaker, considering the permanent nature of many of the dwellings and the fact that many of them are occupied by residents who have been there for years on one-year leases, the board wishes by this change to avoid unnecessary annual paperwork. A longer lease term is also necessary for the residents' sakes because banks often have strict policies against giving home improvement loans or mortgages when the lease is of such short duration.

Further provisions of the bill are of a housekeeping nature. The election mechanism for the two new board members is established and the merger of the city and district as noted.

The park board's borrowing authority is increased to $50,000. This increase is obviously needed since the borrowing limit was last set in 1950 at $20,000.

The Chilliwack authorities have given their approval to the changes submitted by the parks board.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has also indicated no objection to the measures. In approving the proposed amendments the municipalities did request that no lot of less than 7,500 square feet be granted a long-term lease unless it has an acceptable sewer system.

There has been some discussion of the possibility that the regional district take over the management of the park, but in view of the complications and the inevitable delay in such a move it is advisable that this bill proceed in this session so that elected local representation can soon be provided for the approximately 1,200 permanent residents of Cultus Lake Park.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to move second reading of this bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

APPENDIX

Supplementary answer to question 75 (August 6).

"1.

"2.

[ Page 4013 ]

[ Page 4014 ]

[ Page 4015 ]

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

27 The Hon. E.M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 3 is amended:

(a) In paragraph (a) by deleting "4.77%" and substituting "5%", and

(b) In paragraph (b) by deleting "6.27%" and substituting "6 1/2%".

Section 5 is deleted and following substituted:

"5. Section 7(1) is amended:

(a) In paragraph (a):

(i) by striking out '3 6/10%' and substituting '4 1/2%' and

(ii) by striking out '7 2/10%' and substituting '9%';

[ Page 4016 ]

(b) In paragraph (b):

(i) by striking out '5 8/10%' and substituting '8.3%' and

(ii) by striking out '11 6/10%' and substituting '16.6%';

(c) In paragraph (c):

(i) by striking out '4 6/10%' and substituting '5.4%' and

(ii) by striking out '9 2/10%' and substituting '10.8%';

(d) In paragraph (d):

(i) by striking out '3%' and substituting '4.7%' and

(ii) by striking out '6%' and substituting '9.4%';

(e) By repealing paragraph (e) ;

(f) In paragraph (f) by striking out 'section 5(4) ' and substituting 'section 5(1)(b.1)';

(g) In paragraph (h):

(i) by striking out '6%' and substituting '6 1/2%' and

(ii) by striking out 'section 5(1);' and substituting 'section 5(1)(a) and (b);';

(h) In paragraph (i) by striking out 'and, on or after July 1, 1971 the payment required under paragraph (e),';

(i) In subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (i) by striking out 'and, on or after July 1, 1971, by the percentage rate specified in paragraph (e),'; and

(j) In subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (i) by striking out 'and, on or after July 1, 1971, designated under paragraph (e),'."

Section 7 is amended:

(a) By deleting paragraph (a) and substituting the following: "(a) in subsection (1):

(i) in paragraph (a) by striking out '20 years' and substituting '10 years',

(ii) by repealing paragraph (b) and substituting the following:

'(b) if, having completed 10 years of pensionable service, he is totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of section 14 and is retired from service,'

(iii) by adding the following:

'(d) if he,

(i) is an employee referred to in section 2(3)(a) or (d),

(ii) has completed 35 years of pensionable service,

(iii) is 55 years of age or more, and

(iv) retires or is retired from service; or

'(e) if he

(i) is an employee referred to in section 2(3)(b) or (c),

(ii) has completed 30 years of pensionable service,

(iii) is 50 years of age or more, and

(iv) retires or is retired from service.'

"(a.1) in subsection (2):

(i) by striking out '20 years' and substituting '10 years', and

(ii) by striking out 'not more than 10 years' and substituting 'not more than 5 years',

"(a.2) by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following:

" (3) Where an employee, who is not entitled to a superannuation allowance under subsection (1) or (2), resigns, is dismissed or is otherwise retired from service after having reached the minimum retirement age for his group specified in section 2(3), and

[ Page 4017 ]

after completing less than 10 years of pensionable service, he is, on application, entitled to receive

(a) a superannuation allowance, calculated under section 12, after reaching the maximum retirement age for his group, or

(b) a reduced superannuation allowance at any earlier age, that is the actuarial equivalent, on the basis of prescribed tables, of the superannuation allowance that he would be entitled to receive, under section 12, if, with the same service, he had attained the maximum retirement age of his group.'," and

(b) in subsection (b) (dealing with the proposed subsection (6)) by deleting under subsection (3)," and substituting "under this section,".

Section 9 (dealing with the proposed section 16.1(7)) is amended by deleting after reaching age 55