1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

3187 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 77) Second reading.

Mr. Kempf — 3187

Mr. Barrett — 3187

Hon. Mr. Williams — 3191

Division on second reading — 3196

Municipal Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 53) Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Barber — 3196

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3196

section 3.

Mr. Barber — 3196

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3197

Mr. Nicolson — 3197

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3198

Mr. Barber — 3198

section 4.

Mr. Macdonald — 3198

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3199

Mr. Gibson — 3199

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3199

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Levi — 3199

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3200

Mr. Barber — 3200

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3200

Division on

section 4 as amended — 3200

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3200

Mr. Barrett — 3200

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3201

section 10.

Mr. Barber — 3201

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3201

section 23.

Mr. Barber — 3201

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3201

Report and third reading — 3202

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) (Bill 66) .

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Barnes — 3202

Mr. Macdonald — 3204

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3204

Division on third reading — 3205

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3) (Bill 80) .

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mrs. Wallace — 3205

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3206

section 3.

Mrs. Wallace — 3206

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3206

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3206

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3206

Report and third reading — 3207

Sheriffs Act (Bill 56) Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3207

Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 26) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3207

Water Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 27) .

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 3207

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3207

Report and third reading — 3207

Land Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 29) Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 3207

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 3208

section 10.

Mr. Lockstead — 3208

Report and third reading — 3208

Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 70) .

Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 3208

Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 71) .

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 3208

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 3208

Report and third reading — 3209

Companies Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 76) .

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 3209

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 17.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 24.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 36.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3209

Amendment to

section 57.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3210

section 67.

Mr. Gibson — 3210

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 3210

Report and third reading — 3210

British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act (Bill 46) Committee stage.

section 1.

Mrs. Dailly — 3210

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3210

Report and third reading — 3210

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 55) Committee stage.

Amendments to

section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 3210

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3211

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 3211

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3212

Mr. Wallace — 3212

Mrs. Dailly — 3212

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3212

Mr. Nicolson — 3213

section 8.

Mr. Wallace — 3213

On the amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3213

Mr. Wallace — 3214

section 14.

Mrs. Dailly — 3214

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 3214

Report and third reading — 3214

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 77.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I rise in support of Bill 77, the

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, not because I am

anti-labour and not because I want to see restrictions placed on

organized labour in the province of British Columbia ...

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It's the way you were told to vote.

MR. KEMPF: ...not because I want to take issue with the

opposition who seem to think that a mark against labour is a mark

against themselves. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in

favour of Bill 77 because I am a British Columbian ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: ...born and raised in this great province and

because I love this province and its people very much and as a British

Columbian who has lived and worked in this province for all of my 41

years in every job imaginable from digging in the soil and picking the

fruit of the farms of the Okanagan Valley to working in the mines and

mills at Hedley and Princeton in the Similkameen Valley, to digging

holes and setting poles for the old B.C. Power Commission right here on

Vancouver Island, to setting chokers and pulling lumber on a greenchain

in the forest industry of north central British Columbia. During those

years of working at all those different occupations, I belonged to

several trade unions: the old CIO Mine Mill, the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the International Woodworkers of

America.

I believe that it is the profound wish of the ordinary, common,

everyday working person of this province to have legislation that will

end, once and for all, labour-management strife in the province of

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that all the citizens of

British Columbia, whether they belong to organized labour or not, wish

to see an end to the type of labour-management disorder that we have

seen in this province in the last few years — labour-management

disorder which has brought nothing but hardship and despair to all our

citizens. I think it is the wish of the membership of organized labour

in this province to chart their own destiny and put an end to being

told what to do and when and how to vote by the highly paid,

politically motivated union bosses of this province.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that the rank and file union membership

of this province will welcome legislation such as Bill 77 which will

free them from this intimidation. I know through experience that

nothing is ever gained through a strike or lockout — absolutely

nothing. If men and women are off of the jobs such as those belonging

to CAIMAW at Bell Copper at Granisle in my constituency since February

7 of this year, it wouldn't matter if the award, when they got it, was

$5 an hour. What those workers have lost they can never gain in a

lifetime.

I am positive that those workers want to see an end to

strike-lockout situations in the province of British Columbia. The

people of this province can no longer afford the labour-management

strife which we have seen and which we are experiencing at this very

moment in the construction industry in British Columbia. There are the

labour-management problems on the BCR, for instance, that cost the

families of those workers untold hardship, both financial and

psychological, and indirectly, Mr. Speaker, the untold hardships

experienced by those who are dependent on that railroad for their

livelihood.

This province can no longer afford the feeling of uncertainty

created by labour-management strife among the nations of the world

toward our ability as a province to deliver the goods which we produce

and which are so vital to our economy. I believe all the people of this

province, especially the rank-and-file union members, are in favour of

this type of labour law in British Columbia. It is for that reason that

on behalf of my constituents in Omineca I shall vote in favour of Bill

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak

immediately after the member for Omineca. I wanted to let my blood

pressure cool a bit. I had not heard that member speak in the House

before, and I'm kind of glad that I didn't.

What kind of credentials does the member give that say he becomes a

labour expert? He says he's worked. You're not the only one in this

House who has worked, Mr. Member. Others have worked. I've been a

member of a number of trade unions. I've worked in the United States,

I've worked here in Canada — and without the trade union movement none

of the benefits that all of us enjoy would have

[ Page 3188 ]

been possible. I also sold bananas and I worked for

a pea factory and I worked as a cook. I worked digging ditches in the

city of Vancouver.

I had a lot of interesting jobs with the security of a trade union,

all of which enabled me to complete my education — and I have also been

subsidized by welfare payments, because that's what educational

subsidies are. Every doctor, every lawyer is subsidized by the state,

Mr. Speaker. It's a different form of welfare. You all pay your taxes

to educate doctors and to educate lawyers. They don't pay very much of

it back when they charge their fees. They have trade unions — the

doctors' profession and the lawyers. They have control over who comes

into their own membership. They can blacklist students even though

they've passed.

No union has greater control, Mr. Speaker, than the lawyers' union.

They can even keep people out of becoming lawyers on the basis of their

politics. That's a fact. No one is more subsidized by the taxpayer in

becoming a trade union member than lawyers are, Mr. Speaker — no one!

The lawyers have it all their own way.

So when a member talks about freedom and protection of the rank and

file, the rank-and-file lawyer is well protected, the rank-and-file

doctor is well protected — why can't the ordinary working people have

the same protection that you're taking away in this bill? You wouldn't

do to lawyers what you're doing in this bill, Mr. Speaker. You wouldn't

do it to doctors.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about social workers?

MR. BARRETT: Social workers too, Mr. Speaker. Social workers

have got to realize that they are workers too. The sooner they

organize, the better off they'll be. If they learn from the lawyers how

to organize and from the doctors how to organize, social workers would

be better off.

When it comes to union protection, Mr. Speaker, the welfare

recipients such as doctors and lawyers who receive assistance to get

educated don't pay the money back and they don't have the same union

restrictions. What about the closed shop the lawyers have? They don't

even take everybody to the bar — they're selective about that, Mr.

Speaker. They've been known to avoid taking people to the bar because

of their political stripe.

You're not a lawyer, Mr. Member. You're not even the Minister of

Health. The Minister of Education is doing that job for you. You need a

union. If anybody needs a union in this House, Mr. Speaker, it's the

Minister of Health. He can't even get to run his own department — the

Minister of Education takes that away from him, poor guy. And the

Minister of Highways....

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is asking for trouble.

There is no simple solution to labour-management problems. No one

has the answers to the intensity of human relationships and what those

relationships will break out into if there's a loss of confidence or a

loss of communication. Those who say that British Columbia is a

province unique in terms of labour-management negotiations are wrong,

in my opinion. The history of North America has had serious problems of

labour-management confrontation. Some of the major social changes that

have been made in North America have come only from the trade union

movement in confrontation with what is considered to be the

establishment. From the days of the haymarket riot in Chicago to the

death of Ginger Goodwin here in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, the

parallel struggles of ordinary people who have come together to protect

themselves at the work place are amazing. People who work with hand and

back have just as many rights as people who have been subsidized by the

state to become lawyers or doctors. Yet there is greater union

protection for doctors and greater union protection for lawyers than

for any other group in our society, Mr. Speaker. No one says that the

lawyers should conduct a secret strike vote. No one says that the

doctors should conduct a secret strike vote.

As a matter of fact, there's legislation here in the House that

protects the doctors and lawyers from any kind of outside interference

whatsoever. They have the strongest trade unions anywhere.

They're sort of sacred cows, Mr. Speaker, formerly associated only

entirely with the Social Credit Party, now identified with doctors and

lawyers. Mr. Speaker, if the doctors and lawyers who receive state

subsidies to complete their education have these kinds of protections,

why is it we pick on people who we consider to be "workers" for whom

the state knows better? Certainly there are times when governments must

step in. Certainly there are times when disputes spill over into the

public interest, but the set conditions, the set expectations through

legislation are, in my opinion, a dangerous course to go in terms of

trying to develop a more mature relationship between management and

labour. Not one of us in this House approaches labour-management

problems without a bias. There is a bias that philosophically defines

the difference between those of us on this side of the House and those

of you on that side of the House.

It's true that we've been accused of being pro-labour. I'm not

ashamed of that. I'd rather be accused of being pro-labour than

anti-labour, Mr. Speaker. I'd rather be accused of being pro-labour

than anti-labour, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, legislation such as this

can only be interpreted as anti-labour.

Interjections.

[ Page 3189 ]

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker.... Now just be quiet back

there. You're doing all right. You haven't had a bruising or anything;

the potholes are still there. You got away with murder this session.

Mr. Speaker, I'd think he'd be the last fellow to chirp up over there.

Go bail out those cattle. Somebody said you're only playing politics

with the bull. (Laughter.) I could hardly believe that, Mr. Speaker.

Nonetheless, aside from that interruption, I think this bill's a

mistake. I think in the area of declaration of hot goods, the B.C.

Federation of Labour has been very responsible. This is a free society,

Mr. Speaker. Freedoms sometimes are defined as being used excessively

by some people. That all depends on what point of view you have. I know

that some people took licence with the freedom of speech and made wild

statements. We hoped that somehow there'd be a balance in the

community, but it has to be done on the basis of mature thinking rather

than state intervention. Politicians run around taking licence with

freedom of speech, make extravagant statements — no legislation to curb

them. Some people actually run for one political party and switch

parties, Mr. Speaker, only to be open to accusations that they're

opportunists. That's licence with freedom of speech.

If they want to say that something is hot and someone runs for

office and says, "boycott that particular political party because it's

hot, " shouldn't there be some state requirement, after having run and

expressed that hot opinion and then changing that hot opinion and

joining the party that he ran against, shouldn't that be a limit too?

It stands to reason. If there's going to be responsibility on trade

union statements, there should be responsibility on political

statements.

There are undiminished ambitions that have been frustrated, not

because of a lack of honesty and commitment on principle, but because

opportunism has moved in the way and stopped some backbenchers from

getting into cabinet because once their party was declared hot by

opposition members, then they jumped the fence and got in the cabinet.

Why don't we have legislation against that?

If a trade unionist can express an opinion saying, "don't buy this

product, " or "don't vote for that party, " or "don't do this, " you'd

bring in legislation against that. You'd tell them that they can't

define where to place

an act of a purchase but, on the other hand, some

of the people who drew up this legislation were people who went through

a hot edict themselves, double-crossed their own principles, and ended

up in an opportunistic position where you're saying that a man can't

honestly say...but you can do as a politician.

It's confusing, Mr. Speaker. There are three cabinet ministers who

used to belong to one political party who publicly declared the Social

Credit hot ...

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: ...they said they were hot, and then turned

around, after putting on a hot embargo, and joined the group that they

labelled as hot, Mr. Speaker. Under this legislation, they wouldn't be

allowed to do that. That's true, and now they're saying the freedom

they had — that is, freedom of speech, freedom to change one's point of

view, freedom to change their mind, and freedom to jump the political

traces — is okay for politicians, i.e. lawyers and doctors, but not

trade unionists.

Isn't that interesting? Lawyers and doctors — the most secure trade

unions in the province, the ones that get the most welfare subsidy by

way of education transfer payments. They're the ones that have the

freedom to do what some lawyers and doctors have done after declaring

something hot and having kept those people with legitimate aspirations,

who worked hard for years, out of the rewards which should be theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I'm addressing myself to the back bench.

They can see the parallel in this legislation to what I'm talking

about. Some of the devoted members, like the member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), were aced out by lawyers and a doctor on a product that

was declared hot. Under this legislation, he would have never been

taken advantage of that way, Mr. Speaker.

But the legislation is not made for politicians; it's only made for

working people. The politicians, lawyers and doctors are excluded. It's

not fair. I don't wish to make an appeal for that member, Mr.

Speaker. I'm just making the parallel. Why can't one group of citizens

have licence to label something hot and stick with it when others can

do it?

Poor Columbia River, frustrated by lawyers and doctors because they

don't have this same "hot" clause in politics. Unfair! Unfair! To the

backbenchers I can only say: organize, unite; you have nothing to lose

but your chains!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The slaving minions of the Social Credit back

bench who don't know the benefits of trade union organization and the

right to declare products "hot" — they'd be in the cabinet if they

learned that. Three Liberals learned it — doctors, lawyers. Isn't it

interesting!

Well, I think we've worked that one over and I expect the member for

Columbia River will vote with us against this particular

section

because he's the one who's been least protected by it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we go on to the rest of that group. The secret

vote. If there is a secret vote required because an employer may ask

for it, will the back bench have a secret vote in caucus when the

[ Page 3190 ]

lawyers and doctors are in there watching how they vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We do.

MR. BARRETT: You do, eh? You have a secret ballot, eh?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Ask them.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, do you request it, or is it given to you by right, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MACDONALD: Ask Digger what they do.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I don't know. Ask Digger? No, no, don't ask

him; he has the last say on all votes. He's the only guy who throws

dirt around and gets away with it. (Laughter.) Mr. Speaker, I want to

tell you...what about that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What about that? The case of Columbia River is

affected by one

section on the right to declare a product "hot." He

would have declared those Liberals and doctors "hot." He would have

stood up in public and said: "They're hot stuff. We don't want them in

the cabinet; they're crimping my style." But he didn't have that chance.

Now the secret ballot in the back bench — they don't have that

right, either. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, if it was applied

to politicians, I could apply to protect their right to have a secret

ballot in the caucus. Just imagination the legislation that would

change if the same right was given to the back bench which they're

requiring by law, that management can ask for a secret ballot.

How can they not see the parallels, Mr. Speaker? It's to their own

peril that they can't see the parallels. And to get up here and make

pious speeches about the rank and file needing to be protected from

union bosses! The back bench needs to be protected from an

opportunistic cabinet. What group voice do they have? They're left

dangling because they don't have any organization. They're left

dangling because they don't have any legislation protecting them.

They're left dangling because they can't declare ministers "hot."

They're left dangling because they don't have the same freedom that a

trade union organization has, and they're going to get up and vote for

this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

What's the matter with those fellows? They don't see the parallel.

It is a dog-eat-dog society, Mr. Speaker. I disagree with the member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . It is a dog-eat-dog society. If you want to

see any level of dog-eat-dog clawing up the ladder to get someplace,

look at the back bench clawing past each other trying to get the

favoured spots in cabinet, and without human protection, when they know

very well that three of the members of the cabinet declared a product

"hot" went across their own "hot" edict and ended up in the cabinet.

MR. MACDONALD: Seniority means nothing.

MR. BARRETT: Seniority means nothing! You're absolutely

right. Every sacred principle of a trade union protection has been

violated, and now they want to violate more to the peril of their own

rights.

MR. MACDONALD: The last into the party shall be first.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Member — the last shall be

first. That's right — the last three. And out of the best unions of

all, Mr. Member, the lawyers with a closed shop and the doctors who

bury their mistakes.

MR. MACDONALD: It's not a closed shop, though. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: It's very, very interesting how they get up and

make pious statements about the working man. We've seen them work! If

they had the protection of the secret ballot that we called for,

there'd be some real changes over there. Why don't you make the law

applicable to you? Don't duck your head and smile, and your face goes

red — you know very well what I'm talking about over there. Some of you

are trying to hide your faces in magazines; others are turning around

looking at the marble. (Laughter.) Some are checking the scenery on the

very ceilings.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): The marble what?

MR. BARRETT: Those who are brand new are going to discover

that the ceilings have not been censored for years. (Laughter.) But no

matter how many directions you cast your eyes, Mr. Speaker, it's

amazing they can't find the parallels in this book. Even the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who really wants to be that minister,

can't be it because the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

surpasses him. He needs protection — a secret ballot, a declaration of

"hot."

All the pious statements given by the government for regulations and

rules they would love to have the protection of through themselves if

they were good trade unionists. That's why they get abused as

backbenchers, because they don't understand the basic principles of a

trade union organization. One of

[ Page 3191 ]

the things that keeps unions together is to avoid

people cutting each other's throats to curry favour with the boss. Is

that kind of protection available to the backbenchers? I don't think

so. Three spots are open — and there's a lot of blood being spilled for

those three spots. If you had a proper organization, you'd have a

secret ballot to determine which one of you could get those spots,

instead of cutting each other up the way you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, trade union organizations were to bring people

together, not to divide them. The backbenchers haven't learned that

either. Then when it comes to succession and the No. I spot, even the

House Leader's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) job isn't protected. That's right —

even the House Leader's job isn't protected. Without a secret vote,

she's gone! We get a new House Leader. Who was declared hot? The

parallels are unbelievable — absolutely unbelievable.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: And he doesn't even come dressed in white.

Mr. Speaker, you can go through this Act

section by

section and

reduce it to the absurd parallel that I am doing deliberately, to point

out the threat that exists to ordinary freedom, the threats that exist

to ordinary working people, the judgments that are made against people

simply because they work with hand and back — some of whom have more

native intelligence and common sense than the whole group over there

put together.

Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake. I speak through you to the Minister of Labour: don't

be like all other converts, more zealous than those who are born into

the religion. Social Credit has a history of being anti-labour. You

don't have to prove anything, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

You've already jumped the hoops; there are no more that are necessary.

I think you're making a serious mistake in this legislation. I think it

should be hoisted. I'm not going to move a motion that it should be,

but there is no need for you to prove that you are tougher than the

tough or crueler than the cruel.

You've bought the philosophy; you don't have to rub it in. I think

it's a mistake. The former Social Credit Minister of Labour (Mr.

Chabot) wouldn't have gone this far, but he's not been given the

opportunity to even get back into cabinet. It's a mistake, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour closes the debate.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it's been

an enjoyable debate — brief but enjoyable. The last performance is one which

scarcely does credit to the second member for Vancouver East. I have watched

him in my 10 years in the House ...

MR. BARRETT: As a Liberal.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ...and I must say that he is failing in his

age. I remember that "Laugh-In" used to be accompanied by a guy who

fell off his tricycle, but we don't even have that with the member for

Vancouver East.

MR. BARRETT: I remember you used to be a Liberal before you declared it hot.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: When the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King), the former Minister of Labour, opened the debate this afternoon

he was kind enough to express his appreciation for the opportunity of

adjourning the debate last Friday, thereby gaining additional time to

consider Bill 77. I must say that from his remarks, the remarks given

this afternoon by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

and the comments this evening from the second member for Vancouver

East, I can only assume that they found something else to do over the

weekend other than address themselves to Bill 77, because they did not

once deal with the simple principles that are involved in Bill 77. I

will deal with that in a few moments.

I'd wish to commend the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for their careful,

thoughtful consideration to Bill 77 and their clear recognition in Bill

77 for precisely what it is — merely a simple extension of the

principles and the policies which are enunciated in the Labour Code as

given to us in this province by the New Democratic Party. The comments

by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the first member for

Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Vancouver East this evening would

make it quite clear that the official opposition, in debating Bill 77,

is prepared to deny the basic principles of the Labour Code of British

Columbia which they brought before this Legislature and caused to be

passed.

If I could deal with some comments from the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano, as supported by the member for Oak Bay, I might say

this to both of those members: there is a great need to change the

attitudes that are experienced today in labour-management negotiations,

and say to both of those members that it is the commitment of this

government and of my ministry that those attitudes will be encouraged

in the province of British Columbia.

We have in the Labour Code — and I would refer both of them to

section 123 specifically — a provision which perhaps was overlooked by

the NDP. That was the ability of the Minister of Labour to establish a

[ Page 3192 ]

special committee of advisers to assist the

Minister of Labour in matters relating to the improvement of industrial

relations in the province of British Columbia. It is an opportunity

which the former government, which introduced this legislation, did not

use. I wish to assure both of those members that it is an opportunity

which this government will use.

As a matter of fact, initiatives have already been undertaken

whereby with the assistance of experienced and responsible members,

both the labour movement and management in British Columbia will be

brought together with government to discuss on an equal basis those

steps which should be taken in this province to improve the climate of

labour-management relations to the benefit of labour and of management

and of the province generally and of our economy. These initiatives in

our six months in government are barely underway.

But I assure both those members that it is the intention of this

government to achieve this new understanding which I recognize, in my

many meetings with members of the union movement and of management,

that those parties recognize must be achieved if we are to overcome the

difficulties which face this province by use of the ultimate weapon

which is the economic action by unions or by management through the

strike or the use of the lockout provision. I think that in such ways

we can engender a new sense of responsibility which will be a credit to

the union organizations and the management in this province and which

will bring a result to all British Columbia which we must seriously

desire.

Some suggestions were made as to the consequences of continuing

labour disputes in the province of British Columbia upon our economy. I

know that both of those members, for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) and for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), have seriously looked at the

consequences of these continuing disputes whereby we escalate ourselves

out of the ability to compete with those areas around this world that

can supply the same products into the international economy that is the

very lifeblood of the economy of British Columbia. It is to that end

that the policies of the Department of Labour are dedicated.

The specifics of Bill 77 are really quite simple. The member for

North Vancouver-Capilano suggested that somehow or other he thought the

bill should be more balanced. Let me commend to the hon. member the

three areas in which we are concerned, the area of essential services.

That applies to both the right to strike and the right to lock out. So

the impositions of the changes which we make in this particular area

apply to both management and labour. Let me also refer him to the

provisions with regard to the conduct of secret votes by way of

regulation. They apply equally to votes which are taken with respect to

strikes by members of unions and by votes with respect to lockouts by

members of the management organizations that are accredited and bargain

as does the CLRA, the Transport Labour Relations Association and other

accredited management organizations. It applies equally. Let me also

say, with regard to the amendments to

section 90, that they are seen to

be applicable in equivalent ways to the union organizations and to the

management organizations in this province.

Now if I could just refer you, Mr. Speaker, and the members to these

three areas again, and draw upon the changes that are being made until

1977 to the Labour Code as it exists today.... Let us deal first with

the change in

section 73, the essential service designation.

The Labour Code as introduced by the New Democratic Party

specifically provided that three classes of unions — policemen,

hospital unions and firemen — were subject so some specific limitations

with regard to their conduct. Now those limitations, however, were

applicable in those instances when — and I quote specifically — "There

was a dispute and, as a consequence, an immediate and serious danger to

life or health is likely to occur."

Now we have not changed that aspect at all. There must, for the

government to act under the amendment to

section 73(7), be the

immediate and serious danger to health and life. That is to be the

basic consideration which the government and the Minister of Labour

must have before utilizing this provision. Now we have taken away the

application of the rights of government in those cases as it applies to

three specific unions and have made it apply to any trade union.

One may ask why this was done. Let me give you the answer. As a

result of the opportunities which are extended under the Labour Code of

British Columbia, there have been increasing activities towards the

unionization of various categories of employees who heretofore were

considered to be part of the management group. As a consequence, there

is a serious danger in municipalities within this province that unions

will be able to organize and include within their membership those

supervisory employees who heretofore were exempted and who might

therefore in the case of serious strikes be called upon to operate the

water systems or the sewage systems in our municipalities.

Under the Labour Code it is clear now that to an increasing extent

more and more people who were deemed to be in a supervisory category

are now being included within certified bargaining units. Therefore we

are faced with the prospect — the prospect I say, not the certainty but

the prospect — that there would be a strike in a municipality which

might result in employees essential to the operation of water systems

and sewer systems having their services withdrawn.

[ Page 3193 ]

All that we are doing under Bill 77 is to ensure that if such a

situation should arise the government can, by using

section 73, ensure

either one of two events: either we can designate certain services as

being essential and that they shall be continued — in effect, a managed

strike; or, alternatively, that there be a cooling-off period not of 21

days but of 40 days, during which time we can provide the assistance of

special mediators or other experienced people in labour negotiations to

attempt to resolve the dispute. That's the only change.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could you not use this for transportation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we can only use it in the

event of the circumstances of transportation if the government could

establish that there was a serious danger to health or life. Now I

suppose that one could extend this to the provision of ambulance

services to the extent that it is a transportation responsibility, but

essentially it is to give us additional scope to ensure that if there

is an immediate and serious danger to health and life, the government

has some opportunity to move. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to

the members of the opposition: are you telling me that the responsible

members of the unions in this province, the people who were praised

this afternoon by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), would be

prepared to withhold their services when there is an immediate and

serious danger to health and life in this province? I don't believe

there are workers who would act that way in this province.

All that we are asking as a government is to be given the

opportunity to point out this set of circumstances when there is the

inability to resolve a dispute. Yes, we have a cooling-off period. We

had a cooling-off period before. The NDP brought that in, not this

government nor the previous Social Credit government nor any other

government. The NDP government brought in the cooling-off period, and

we have found from the experience in the recent hospital dispute that

21 days is inadequate.

Perhaps 80 days would be too long because, as the member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) pointed out, there is a tendency, if you delay these

matters too long, to distract people from the responsibility that they

have to bargain collectively, to work with the responsible third

parties who can resolve disputes. We think — and this is only an

estimate on our part — that 40 days is adequate. Twenty-one days was

certainly not adequate in the case of the hospital dispute. If 40 days

is too long, we don't have to use 40 days. If 40 days is too short, we

will have to come back to this Legislature and ask for your

consideration for some extension. That is why in Bill 58, with regard

to B.C. Rail and the B.C. Ferries, we provided for a cooling-off period

of not longer than 90 days so that we had some flexibility in that

particular legislation to determine what was the appropriate time for

the cooling-off period to enable us, as a government, to assist the

parties in resolving their differences. We think that in this

particular case of the Labour Code — a code, as opposed to special

legislation dealing with specific disputes — that 40 days is a time

which we can apply.

Now may I turn to this question of the strike vote which has caused

so much concern to the opposition today? I must say that I was startled

at the number of times that the official opposition referred to

"government-supervised strike votes." Mr. Speaker, in no place in Bill

77 does it refer to government-supervised strike votes. It refers to

the conduct of secret strike ballots in accordance with the provisions

and regulations.

I must say to the members of this House that I would be delighted if

I could lay out before you the specific regulations that we have under

consideration, but as I pointed out when I introduced Bill 77 in second

reading, it is the intention of this government to design those

regulations in concert with those groups in our society who themselves

will have to work with these regulations. It includes the Labour

Relations Board, the union organizations and the management

organizations in precisely the way in which the Labour Code of British

Columbia was originally designed before it was brought before this

Legislature. It's only fair that the people who have to work with the

regulations should have some input, we believe, in the way those

regulations are designed. There is no suggestion that it is going to be

a government-supervised strike vote in every case, and there is no

reason for which the official opposition could seize upon that phrase

and continually put it forward in the course of debates here today.

That's not the purpose whatsoever.

However, let me also hasten to say, before any member of a union

organization in British Columbia or a management organization thinks

that it is this government which decided upon the secret ballot, that

it was the NDP who decided on the secret ballot. The provisions in the

Labour Code as they stand today, introduced into this Legislature by

the New Democratic Party, call specifically — and I will read it: "No

person shall declare or authorize a strike and no employee shall strike

until after a vote has been taken by secret ballot." Those are the

words of the NDP. Those are the words which were introduced in

legislation brought in by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. This isn't

something that we suddenly decided upon. All we suddenly decided was

how to carry it out if there's going to be a vote by secret ballot.

The member for Oak Bay put it very succinctly this afternoon in his remarks, and I had occasion to

[ Page 3194 ]

make note of them. He said: "A strike vote should be taken

properly." The question is: what is properly? Does each union decide

what is proper? Does each management organization decide what is

proper? Or do we by regulation assist both those parties to determine

what is proper?

We, as a government, believe that we should set out as a model for

unions and for employer organizations what is proper in the taking of a

strike vote — quite simply. But, you know, we didn't think of all this

ourselves. Let me refer the members to what the NDP provided in

section

55 of the Labour Code as it presently stands.

Now this is the NDP legislation. They provided in

section 54 for

certain matters to take place if there's a merger or amalgamation of

unions. If need be, they provided that before making a declaration with

regard to the merger of amalgamation of unions they could take a vote

in such manner as the Labour Relations Board considered necessary or

advisable. In

section 55 the NDP, in their wisdom, provided as follows:

"All voting directed by the board under this Act shall be by secret

ballot" — but we agree with that — "and the board, or a person

appointed by the board, shall conduct the taking and the counting of

the vote."

Now isn't that a terrible thing! Imagine, someone should conduct the

taking and the counting of the vote. Now the NDP obviously don't trust

anybody to do this. I thought the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

suggested today what a terrible interference this would be in the

internal conduct of the affairs of the union. But, no, there it is

enshrined in legislation passed by the NDP government in 1973 — that a

person appointed by the board shall conduct the taking and the counting

of the vote.

Now let me go on. I hate to go on. It really pains me to...shall I go on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, go on!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): They don't even read their own legislation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: "Where, in the opinion of the board, the vote has not been held in accordance with the regulation...." Imagine, the Labour

Relations Board of British Columbia comes to the opinion that the

vote has not been held in accordance with the regulations. What do they

do? The board may order another vote. Terrible! I would ask the members

to look very carefully at what we have provided in the amendments to

sections 81 and 82 of the Labour Code. Do you know what we provide?

Shocking! If there's something found wrong with the vote, the board may

order the taking of another vote — exactly what the NDP provided in 1973. Now

perhaps the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the former Minister of Labour, didn't

know what to do with the legislation they introduced into this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give them another weekend to read it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Another 10 days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Another 10 days? Shall we hoist this bill

for another 10 days just to give them time to read the bill? Or should

I read on further?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Give them 10 days to read the old one.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe I should read on a little further, because there's more.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Seems the member for Revelstoke only knows how to throw the book at you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It says, Mr. Speaker: "The board may make

such regulations as it considers necessary and advisable with respect

to all matters necessary for the taking of a vote under this Act, and

for that purpose may define the expressions 'representation vote' and

'eligible vote'." Now imagine, not that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. would make any regulations but indeed

that the Labour Relations Board has been delegated the responsibility

under this legislation to make regulations with respect to all matters

necessary to the taking of a vote, and to define expressions

"representation vote" and "eligible vote."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure the members of the House that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has no hesitation in

assuming this responsibility. And we'll be quite happy to define what

members of a union are eligible to vote; what notice they must be given

so they can cast their vote properly; where that notice must be posted,

and in the event that the vote is to be by mail, how the mail ballot

will be conducted; what question will be posed to them; and, if

necessary — as in

section 55 — the government may also involve itself

in the taking and the counting of the vote.

Now that last responsibility is one which gives us very grave

concern. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, in my very brief experience as

Minister of Labour I have come across a number of occasions where when

confronted by union leaders, I have had to ask: "What was the result of

the secret ballot taken with regard to strike votes?" The answer I have

received is: "No one knows; I haven't counted the vote yet." I just

don't happen to think that's fair. I don't think that's fair to the

members of the union — that one union officer can take unto himself the

decision as to

[ Page 3195 ]

whether he should or should not count the vote and when he should count the vote.

I think that if the members of a union or of a management

organization are obliged to cast a vote as to whether to strike or to

lock out, they are entitled to have that vote counted and they're

entitled to have the results of that vote made known. Is that so unfair?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's pretty wild.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's wild, isn't it? Is that so wild? I

was impressed by something the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King)

said in the course of his remarks. He said we were setting a dangerous

precedent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it a dangerous precedent to

ensure that the rules of democracy are defined by regulation and

carried out?

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll get those unions riddled with democracy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is that the same member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) who, when he can't get his own way, throws books?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's the same member, Mr. Premier. The

member for Revelstoke-Slocan spoke very highly of the unions in this

province. I think he did so with some justification. I happen to

believe as well that those same unions and their members are quite

prepared to have their fairness and their sense of democracy displayed

for all to see. I think that they are prepared to stand up in this

province and have their actions counted in the same way as political

parties have their actions counted every time there is a vote by the

voters.

There isn't a member in this House nor is there a person who ran for

a seat in this House as a candidate and who was defeated who was not

prepared to put his name on the line and to have the vote counted and

to have that vote result made known publicly at the earliest possible

moment. I believe that the unions in this province are prepared to do

no less.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan said there was a uniqueness in the

B.C. labour scene, and he was right. I think there's a uniqueness. I

think there's a willingness on the part of our union organizations to

stand up democratically and say: "We will undergo whatever surveillance

the government deems is appropriate in the conduct of our affairs."

That is a mark of the respect that I think they are entitled to in this

province.

Therefore let me say a few things about the remarks of the member

for Revelstoke-Slocan which I find distasteful. I was saddened by what

the member for Revelstoke-Slocan had to say today. He referred

extensively to the report of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit in British Columbia with respect to the association

between organized labour and crime. In doing it he pointed out that it

didn't apply to British Columbia, but he surely left the suggestion

that somehow or other in the labour movement there was a serious danger

that organized crime and the labour movement are linked together. It

was a red herring, a red herring that did not enhance his position but

damaged the position of all union members in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pouring gas on the flames.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And he did more. While the first member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) breathed heavily upon the embers to

make them glow, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan stood by throwing

gasoline on the flames. That's precisely what we have.

I made a note of his remarks, phrase by phrase. He talked about a

dangerous precedent. He talked about passing laws against labour. He

talked about built-in industrial strife. He talked about unprecedented

industrial chaos. He talked about an appeal to hysteria. He talked

about the gorging of the wealthy and the powerful. He talked about the

freedom to move labour and the freedom to move oneself around. He

talked about jungle warfare. He talked about "don't wave the red flag."

That's exactly what the member did this afternoon. He waved the red

flag in a way that organized labour in this province does not require.

He has radicalized, as only that member can and as only that party can,

the union movement in the province of British Columbia.

When it came to his comments about the public of this province, to

the public of this province he was particularly unworthy. His remarks

were: "Misguided, misunderstood, popular public misconception." That's

the attitude of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the former Minister

of Labour, so far as the general public is concerned in this province.

That's a position that is not supported by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Bob Williams' first speechwriting job this afternoon.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wondered who wrote the speech of the

member for Revelstoke-Slocan. You know, I always had a great deal of

respect for him in this House. He has discharged himself well in

debates in all the years that I have seen him here, and yet the early

part of his remarks were ones which he read very carefully but not very

well. They obviously were words which are foreign to his tongue. I am

afraid that whoever the speechwriter was, whether it be the $80,000-man

or not, they failed that member.

[ Page 3196 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The buy-a-seat man.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would rather the former Minister of

Labour had used the words that were introduced into this debate by the

member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). He spoke about

building trust. That's what is required so far as labour and management

relations are concerned in British Columbia — to build a trust. We have

a tenuous bridge being formed today between labour and management. I

have been pleased to have had the opportunity to see it grow. But words

such as those that have been offered in debate this afternoon by

members of the official opposition have torn down that bridge a little

bit.

I say to the members — and I say to the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), who said that he trusted it was not the intention of the

government to inflame — that it is not the intention of this government

to inflame. We will do such as we must to ensure that the damage done

today by the official opposition is undone and that we continue to

build on trust between labour and management until we achieve the

relations that we have to have in this province so that all of our

citizens can enjoy the benefits that this great province has to offer,

whether they be in management, whether they be in labour or whether

they have no relationship with either of those two groups in our

society. If in some little way the amendments which we are offering in

Bill 77 will contribute to that, then I will be satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 77.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

Barrett

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

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

Bill 77, Labour Code Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 1.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): This Bill 53, as well as offering

voting privileges to absentee landlords, has expanded the definition of

"owner" to include — if I may quote from the explanatory notes of the

bill itself — "persons purchasing or leasing property." I wonder if the

minister could explain to the House why it was felt necessary to make

this particular expansion in the definition, who it is intended to

cover and how generally he might justify this, as this is a most

peculiar inclusion on the voters lists in any province in Canada which

I've studied. Why shall an owner of property now be considered to

include "persons purchasing or leasing property"? I wonder if the

minister could explain.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think

that it is a desirable expansion of the definition for those who are

under a purchase agreement for sale or are entering into a lease, as it

says here, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. second member. With

the introduction of "owner" in this legislation, I think it is

necessary for us to expand on the term, and that is what we have

attempted to do in this section. You said, I believe, Mr. Chairman,

that it is the only province in Canada....

MR. BARBER: Certainly it is very uncommon in Canada.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We feel it is desirable in light of following sections, Mr. Chairman.

Sections I and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BARBER: We discussed this once before. At the time when I

raised the question of the powers that would be granted to the

inspector of municipalities to determine whether or not municipalities

shall retain independence of action

[ Page 3197 ]

and authority to create business enterprises that serve the

interests of themselves or collaborate with other municipalities, or a

regional district, the minister agreed — by a nod of his head, as I

recall — that it would be important to understand what terms of

reference would be employed by the inspector of municipalities. More

specifically, what criteria would the inspector use in order to justify

his refusal to permit a municipality or a regional district to engage

in a public enterprise or a public works programme of some sort or

another not permitted by the Act?

I mentioned the case, and I would remind the minister of the

possibility raised by various civic officials in greater Victoria about

the construction and operating of an asphalt plant in order to bring

down the very substantial, and when gone to public tender, remarkably

similar — indeed, identical — tender proposals made by allegedly

competing companies in greater Victoria.

I think it would be very important that the minister state as

specifically as he can tonight, or give an undertaking that at some

time in the future these terms of reference would be published, so that

cities or municipalities or regional districts should understand

specifically what the boundaries are, what the criteria are, and what

the terms of reference shall be.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the veto

authority, inasmuch as that is what it is, would be used very rarely by

the inspector of municipalities. He would, or his designate — because,

as you know, the position is held by more than one person with deputy

inspectors in place in the department — perhaps apply such criteria,

Mr. Chairman, as when reviewing borrowing bylaws or the general

financial health of a municipality. I do think that it would be used

rarely, but there are those instances, Mr. Chairman, where all

indicators quite clearly show that a municipality should not be

entering into a particular project or enterprise which may have the

enthusiasm of the moment on the part of the electorate and the council.

The inspector of municipalities would be expected to examine such

things as the general financial health of the community, the taxable

assessed value of the municipality, the per capita taxable assessed

value, the five-year projection of capital spending needs, the capital

budget. In other words, the example that the member quoted in second

reading and again tonight, off the top of my head, is a desirable....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I certainly can't. But that's a

desirable move for a municipality or group of municipalities to

consider. But there are those instances, and I don't wish to cite

specifics — they may be known to some members of the House or not —

there are those instances when I think it is important for the

inspector of municipalities, being ultimately responsible for the

health of local government through this Legislature, through the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, to have the degree of veto power that is

proposed in this section. I do not believe that it will be abused.

MR. BARBER: You used the phrase, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, "when reviewing borrowing bylaws, " and may I understand

that to mean that one of the considerations in place here would be

whether or not a municipality, by virtue of proposing a business

enterprise of this nature, might be getting too heavily into debt?

Would that be one of the concerns?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Precisely.

MR. BARBER: The minister says "precisely," but the problem

is that in

section 10 of this bill, Mr. Chairman, you have removed the

ceiling on indebtedness. Now you can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister.

You can't tell us here that you're going to employ certain criteria,

one of which will be indebtedness, to deny municipalities or regional

districts the right to enter into public business enterprises, and on

the other, in

section 10 of the bill, remove altogether the ceiling on

indebtedness. Which way is it, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to

move from one

section to another. Within the limits of the Chair's

permission, I will attempt to indicate that we are dealing in this

section with precisely as it says: "to incorporate a company for that

purpose or to acquire shares in a corporation engaged in those

undertakings." The hon. second member for Victoria has read the bill,

obviously very thoroughly, and that is the area to which this

section

addresses itself. We want that degree of control over local government

in terms of a municipal council, as I said a few moments ago, in the

heat or enthusiasm of the moment getting into a particular activity

which that community may well have cause to regret later on.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

bring to the minister's attention something which the City of Nelson,

in the heat and enthusiasm of the moment sometime back about 1900, got

carried away with. They got all carried away with a newfangled idea

called electrification and the idea of building a hydro-electric plant.

Now I believe that preceded electrification in Vancouver. They had an

electric railway car before the city of Vancouver. Without really

casting any misgivings or

[ Page 3198 ]

aspersions upon the inspector of municipalities, how would such a newfangled idea have been received in that time?

The community of the day had the enthusiasm, had the imagination,

and if more communities had such enthusiasm and imagination, other

areas might have been — and, indeed, some others were — involved in

this rather saving enterprise. It's just a little bit paternalistic to

think that if people are responsible to voters in a local area, they

have to be held responsible — and why should this larger body be held

any more or less responsible than a municipality?

It seems to me that it would create an area for awesome, sweeping

powers in the hands of one agency, and it could subvert the intentions

of duly elected local officials. It is really tying the hands of

municipalities; it's being paternalistic towards municipalities and

what they can do. The minister says there are some abuses which he

won't name in the House, but I can give examples of enterprises which

at the time certainly would have looked foolhardy, but which turned out

to have been a very wise decision. So I feel that this is a very

paternalistic and assuming section. I do not think it is a worthwhile

addition.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a difference

between a utility and a corporation such as envisaged in this

section

and/or a company. One other observation I would make, and it is a very

brief one, is that we have a situation with B.C. Hydro which might

overrule local government in terms of the distribution of electricity.

But the other point I would make is simply that we have had no

complaint from local government as they have reviewed this amendment

and others. They have commented on a few, but there has been absolutely

no complaint on this particular restriction — and it is a restriction,

admittedly.

MR. BARBER: I just have one very brief final and concluding

comment about this section. It does, I believe, contradict

section 10 —

where you removed that altogether to include in

section 3 a provision

to control indebtedness. It is not a consistent line of thinking.

Perhaps someone drafted

section 3 who is not related too much to the

person who drafted

section 10. But I don't believe that it is

consistent.

However, there is another concern, and it is the final one I wish to

raise. If the terms of reference to be used by the inspector of

municipalities upon those, perhaps, rare occasions when municipalities

or regional districts will be turned down in their application to

proceed with a business enterprise are not made public, are not a

matter of record and are not generally understood and welcomed by

municipal governments in British Columbia, there is always the

possibility that some people will say that political interference took

place no matter which government is in power, no matter which

government is responsible for turning down a municipality. If the

criteria and terms of reference employed are not public, understood and

available as a matter of record, the charges of political interference

are open and susceptible and will be made.

I would strongly urge the minister, having prepared those terms of

reference, to write them down and send them — through UBCM or through

this Legislature — because I think there will be an inevitable conflict

here. Heat of enthusiasm or the rest of it, those people are concerned

about what they propose. I am sure they will feel they are doing it

responsibly, and when they are turned down they are going to be pretty

angry. I hope the minister is ready for that.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. MACDONALD: This section, as the minister well knows,

introduces the principle of plural voting back into the province of

B.C. where it had been discarded by democratic process in the term of

the last government. It means that somebody owning property outside of

the municipality can vote....

MR. WALLACE: What's wrong with that?

MR. MACDONALD: Who said that?

MR. WALLACE: I said it.

MR. MACDONALD: No, that's from the days of the country squire. One man, one vote! That's what democracy is all about it.

MR. WALLACE: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: It's not a plutocracy we live in. We do not

vote by property; we vote by conscience and by individuality. What is

democracy? It is vote by people — not two votes because you happen to

own property in another municipality. You live in West Vancouver but

you can vote in Matsqui — that's not democracy. That is Toryism! That

has been disappearing across the face of the globe, and we do not want

to see it revived in this province. We do not believe, on this side of

the House, in plural voting. And if we lose the support of the Tory

party on this division — and there ought to be a division on this

section — so be it! We will move with what troops we have. We will

lose that vote.

[ Page 3199 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your haggis is curdling.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs before I bleed my knuckles here, because

this is really a retreat; this is really a retreat from the democratic

principles. I want to ask the minister: will he allow this change to

be imported into the voting of the city of Vancouver under the

Vancouver City Charter without that kind of a change having first been

adopted by Vancouver city council and processed through the private

bills committee of the Legislature? I'm telling the minister that

Vancouver would not accept this, the principle of plural voting. I am

asking him whether he will impose it upon the city of Vancouver, or

will he draw back and say that it depends upon a vote of that council

and the consideration of the private bills committee before that change

will be introduced in Vancouver.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the first member for

Vancouver East simply recycled his very excited statements of second

reading and I don't think they really deserve any further comment. I

answered them in closing debate in second reading. The member knows

very well, very well indeed, that Vancouver has its own charter. That

would be another bill and another day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplemental, the hon. first member for Vancouver East. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: Will the minister give his assurance that

this change will not be visited upon the city of Vancouver without the

approval of the elected council of that city?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member knows very well the

question is out of order. This

section deals with those municipalities

under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Act and not the city of

Vancouver.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That member is a resident of Esquimalt, not Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister of

Municipal Affairs is so enamoured of the principle of property voting

in addition to individual voting that he would be willing to allow that

kind of a change to be imposed upon the city of Vancouver without the

consent of its elected council. Is that your attitude? That's the

Tory attitude. You've come into this party — the coalition — as a

former Conservative and a former Liberal and you've brought your blue

weeds with you. Are you going to impose that on Vancouver or not?

That's a fair question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If you'd worked as hard as Attorney-General

as you did during that speech, we would have had a good

Attorney-General in the last government.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: See if you can get him a vote in Vancouver East.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

after a careful reading of this

section it occurred to me that were I a

resident of the Falkland Islands and I owned some property at the comer

of Lonsdale and Esplanade....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, the point is that you're a British subject there.

I could vote if I owned some property at the comer of Lonsdale and

Esplanade not having lived in Canada for a period of 12 months or

British Columbia for a period of six months, which is otherwise

required. It seemed to me that a modest amendment would be in order.

Trying to be helpful to the government, I would move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we will accept the amendment.

I have had a chance to look at it over a number of days on orders of

the day. It does refine and improve

section 4 by adding subsection (e).

It is quite acceptable. It will be necessary, however, Mr. Chairman,

to amend a

section a little further down the line. I have an amendment

to propose without notice.

MR. GIBSON: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad the

minister is going to move a consequential amendment. I would like to

say that this amendment is a great tribute to the research staff that

we have around here.

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Could I ask the minister if

he has any idea how many votes we are talking about in terms of

corporations? Could he, for instance, give an example of the

municipality that he

[ Page 3200 ]

was once the mayor of? How many, for instance, would there be in a

place like Saanich or in the province? Does he have any examples of the

numbers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we don't have a precise

estimate. I would think that in a municipality such as Saanich with

72,000 people, not very many. It would show up more in municipalities

such as Victoria city — in the core municipalities of a metropolitan

area.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, there is another question. I refer to

section 4 (5) . The phrase reads:

"A corporation shall not be registered as an elector

or vote at an election unless it files a written authorization with the

clerk of the municipality naming some individual of the full age of 19

years who is a Canadian citizen or a British subject as its agent to

vote on its behalf."

This is in material conflict with the announced policy and changes,

indeed, of various of the citizenship requirements of the Government of

Canada. It is no longer acceptable that simply being a British subject

shall entitle someone to vote in a Canadian election. Rather, as the

minister knows, through you, Mr. Chairman, the federal government has

adopted a policy which I think most Canadians support which is in

recognition that we are no longer a colony, that we are no longer

ourselves British subjects in the ancient understanding of that, that

it is no longer appropriate that British subjects shall be entitled to

vote automatically but rather persons properly in receipt of the

privilege of Canadian citizenship shall be. I see the minister nodding

in agreement.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry. I misinterpreted. I hope the minister

will nod in agreement that there is no point or justification for

granting simply by virtue of being a British subject a vote to a person

in that category. I wonder if the minister could tell us, Mr. Chairman,

why he found it necessary to step back from a federal policy which is

widely understood and widely supported and why it is not good enough

simply to be a Canadian citizen but that the alternate choice of being

a British subject is as well open to the electors under this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I indicated, I think, in

closing second reading on this amending bill that I hoped at some time

in the near future it would be possible for the government of the

province of British Columbia to rewrite the Municipal Act. There are

many references throughout the Act as it is now written to "Canadian

citizen or British subject." I think to have deleted it in this

amending

section only and still have it appear elsewhere in the Act

would be contradictory. If we're going to change it, then we would

change it when the Act is fully rewritten. I say if we are going to

change it. You'll recall my comments in second reading. I believe I'm

the third Minister of Municipal Affairs who has expressed a hope that

the Act could be rewritten, but it's a massive task.

Section 4 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

Barrett

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

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

section 5.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I indicated just a few moments ago, it

will be necessary to amend

section 5 — and this is without notice, with

leave of the committee — by adding at the end of item I of Form 2, Mr.

Chairman, which is the form on page 3 of the bill, application for

registration, the words "and that I have resided in British Columbia

for the past six months and in Canada for the past 12 months." It is

necessary to amend that form.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I know that some of us who are

just mortals make mistakes, but I'm shocked that the minister makes

errors or omissions in legislation. When he was in opposition he used

to hoot and howl and wave when little mistakes were made. I'm surprised

now that he makes little mistakes, and I think that it should be a

matter of great concern to that minister. He's human!

[ Page 3201 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I suppose the public address system is not

working in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It wasn't an

error. Once we determined, Mr. Chairman, that the committee accepted

the amendment from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

it was necessary to introduce a following amendment. That's what

happened, Mr. Member.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. BARBER: This is the

section that contradicts the other

one. This is the

section where municipalities no longer have any

ceiling whatever on the level of indebtedness to which they may rise.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Resign! (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: I want to know why this limitation has been

removed, and I want to know how a minister can reconcile the removal of

this limitation and the decision he has made to place in the hands of

the inspector of municipalities the authority to determine what

contractual debts may be entered into and which may not. With his many

speeches in Hansard during the debate on the Natural Gas Revenue

Sharing Act, I would like to remind briefly and kindly the minister

that on three occasions he is recorded in one debate, which I read very

carefully, as attacking again and again and again the awesome, sweeping

powers granted to the inspector of municipalities.

What does he do? He's in office six months and here in

section 10

are awesome, sweeping powers granted to the inspector of

municipalities. It's a bit strange, Mr. Chairman. It's more than a bit

inconsistent, and indeed this

section contradicts

section 3 of the bill

itself. I wonder if the minister could explain, or attempt to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the question of conflict is a

matter of

interpretation and a matter of how you look at the section.

The purpose of this amendment,

section 10, is to place the

municipalities in a more flexible position when acquiring property

particularly for housing and related development purposes. That's why

it is amended. It's entirely different, in my view, to companies such

as we dealt with in the earlier section.

MR. BARBER: I don't mean to take the time of the House, but

that really isn't an adequate or complete explanation. When you acquire

property you also acquire debt. When you acquire debt, you are no

longer required, as you were under the previous Act, to report to the

Department of Municipal Affairs the amount of that indebtedness.

I want to understand from the minister why he has chosen, concerned

as he says he is about the fiscal health of municipalities, to remove

one of the final and most important powers that any Minister of

Municipal Affairs should have, which is the right to determine to what

extent municipalities shall enter into debt.

I would remind the minister that municipalities more than once

during the great Depression in this country went bankrupt, and certain

school boards did also. It's happened before, it could again. It's as

likely to happen now under this coalition as it was under the previous

government during the Depression. I wonder if the minister could

justify this removal altogether of the ceiling on contractual

indebtedness that may be undertaken by municipalities or regional

districts.

Sections 10 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. BARBER: The bill on page 10, left-hand side,

section 23,

refers erroneously to a

section 776. I just wish to point out to the

minister that the

section actually applies to

section 766, as appears

on the right-hand side of the page. I wonder if the minister might take

a note of that in order that there should be no conflict whatever when

the bill, as it inevitably will, passes.

In the explanatory notes it refers to

section 776, on the right-hand

side of the page to

section 766. It's a very tiny point, but in order

that the law not be inaccurate at all when printed and there be no

confusion about it, I would ask the minister if he would instruct

whoever is responsible to make that correction.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): More errors!

MR. LAUK: Oh, good heavens! Sloppy draftsmanship, poor administration, fiscal irresponsibility, awesome, sweeping powers!

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am informed by more

experienced colleagues on this side of the House that really we are not

concerned with explanatory notes but rather the section, and while I

appreciate the member's comments, the

section is

[ Page 3202 ]

correct as presented on page 10 of the bill.

Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 53, Municipal Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendment. Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 53, Municipal Amendment Act, 1976, read a third time and passed.

MR. LAUK: It's a black day for British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 (NO. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 1.

MR. BARNES: On the second reading of this bill I think we

made quite clear our protest of having to have this bill brought before

us, which is really a political document designed to take unfair

advantage of a segment of the driving population, namely the 25 years

of age and under, on the pretence that if they have an excellent,

perfect driving record, they will be permitted to receive a rebate of

some 25 per cent at the end of the fiscal year. Of course, that's a

pretty good trick for a business-based coalition government to propose,

but those of us on the other side of the House are beginning to

understand how business is taken care of in this province.

Certainly there's very little opportunity or very little chance of

one failing if they're going to practise business methods that the

coalition has done by presenting this bill, because you're suggesting

that what you do is collect 100 per cent from the drivers and then tell

them that if they behave you'll give them 25 per cent back. Well,

that's a pretty good deal, you know, if you have the power to pull it

off. I feel that it's our duty to make the public aware of what the

implications of this bill really are.

To support my points, just recall when we brought in the deficit

repayment Act — I think it was Bill 3 — some while ago and you wanted

some $400 million to pay off supposed bills that had been....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 3?

MR. BARNES: Yes, Bill 3. I'm sorry, I think I said Bill 4,

but there was another hoax. Now we have ICBC, the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia, with a problem, Mr. Chairman. They have something

like $147.3 million that they don't know what to do with. They're going

to have to find some way to hide it because of their overcharge. Now

that's a nice twist, an overcharge, and they're saying to the people

that we're going to give them a rebate of some 25 per cent if they

behave themselves, after robbing them, and we have agreements that it

was supposed to break even with no political interference — with well

over $1 million surplus after a very few months of this government

being in business.

We predicted that this would happen if you raised the rates some

300, 400 or 500 per cent, and it's going to get worse. So now you're

saying that from consolidated revenue you're going to give the people

some 25 per cent return, those under 25 years of age, if they have a

good driving record, when in fact you should be giving them a rebate on

their premiums based on a more fair appraisal of what the cost should

be.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should demonstrate

the good intentions of the government when it joined the federal

anti-inflation programme and that it would subject the ICBC to the same

kind of scrutiny through the Anti-Inflation Board for review that it is expecting the public sector to go

through. By doing so we would be more encouraged to believe that the

government has a sincere interest in trying to curb inflation. What

better opportunity would it have when it has obviously overcharged the people of the province of British Columbia who drive their automobiles — already has a surplus of some $147.3 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Staggering.

MR. BARNES: Staggering — well, blame the press. I get my

source the same as you do. That's what they reported. Where did you get

that money from when you said you were trying to loan ICBC money before

they were in trouble? Now you've got all this money. What are you going

to do with it? You're

[ Page 3203 ]

accumulating money like mad. What are you going to do with it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly avoid repeating all the arguments that we had during second reading?

MR. BARNES: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. You're very,

very correct. But you realize that I'm speaking to a government that

has shown in the past a rather callous approach toward things, and I

want to ensure that they soften somewhat and begin to be more receptive

to the points that I'm trying to make. I'm sure the hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) can appreciate the methods that I'm

using. They appear to be redundant, but they do have a way of

penetrating after a while the thick skulls of the exterior of this

political arena which we are attempting to soften in order to get on

with the people's business.

I appreciate your bringing me back in line, and I just want to say

that I'm not encouraged by the behaviour of the government, though, in

bringing in this legislation, because it would appear as though they

are going to gain some political advantage in suggesting that they are

now nice people when they were so ruthless and reckless with the

economy just a few months ago. You know, we're looking at a bill that

says it's going to seek the authority to give a rebate to people 25

years of age and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: I'm speaking to the principle of the bill. There's only one

section here, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, Hon. Member, but this has been

well canvassed in the second reading of the bill, and we have passed

second reading.

MR. BARNES: Well, thank you, but did you hear the whole

debate? Everything? Well, you let me know if there's anything that I've

said specifically that you have heard before and I will try and avoid

it. But I will keep trying to find something that you haven't heard.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay, I'll put it another way: would you withdraw

this bill for the present and give us an opportunity to find out if the

people think it is adequate? I will sit down if you will do that. Now I

haven't said that before. I would like to see you really come out with

a more palatable programme rather than 25 per cent.

Mr. Minister of Education, I'm pleased to see that you are here

because I'm sure you are going to stand up and give an explanation for

the surplus ICBC presently has, and indicate that you will be reviewing

the actuarial charts you used in arriving at those figures — at least,

the overcharge — in good faith to assure the public that there is no

political interest, as far as the government is concerned, in running

ICBC on a break-even basis, and that without any interference, you will

subject it to the Anti-Inflation Board for review, take it completely

out of your hands, that you will use the retroactive mechanism

available to you to ensure that there are no discrepancies whatsoever

on the part of ICBC's actuarial projections, and that the costs will

relate to real costs, that you will lay it all before the people — such

things as removing the compulsory clause ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: ...that we had before ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: ...which was for...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: ...collision, which was at that time required, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe we are dealing with the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I'm sorry. Am I speaking to the wrong member? Well, they both go together.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're speaking for the wrong member, yes, and this is Bill 66.

MR. BARNES: Sorry about that, but I thought that ICBC was in the hands of the Minister of Education. Are you telling me that the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please....

MR. BARNES: ...first or the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, is he not in ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. BARNES: ...ICBC?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I'm telling you that this is Bill 66 and we're dealing with the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications.

MR. BARNES: Okay, that's fine. Well, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications, I hope

[ Page 3204 ]

that you will see fit to consult with the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia in respect to their programme and that you will take under

advisement my suggestions that there really should be a review of the

ICBC actuarial rates before the Anti-Inflation Board and on a

retroactive basis — not on a basis of starting from today, but starting

from before you created those new rates. Obviously, with the surplus

you are accumulating, there have been some miscalculations. Besides,

you need to have some way of using that $100 million that you have —

$100.5 million actually.

I think it will get worse. I've never seen a situation where, in a

time of inflation, we've got a problem with too much money. But you

really have got a problem, because if you do anything other than give

that money back to the people, it's highway robbery. You've taken

advantage of the people without.... You're only giving 25 per cent back

to a certain segment, and I suggest that that's unfair.

I don't want to belabour the point, but I want to make it quite

clear that this is a political bill, and I don't intend to let it die

just because you have your awesome power in the way you're going to

vote us down and get on with the passing of this bill in committee,

because it's an unfair bill.

It's a pretty serious situation at a time when people do not have

sufficient funds to survive on and you've got this money in a surplus

capacity when it should be back in the hands of the people. That's

wrong. Perhaps I'm not saying it too well this evening — it's kind of

late — but you should get the message.

You said that you were going to operate on a break-even basis;

you're not doing it. You have a surplus, and you shouldn't have a

surplus. You've made no indication that you intend to return any of the

funds. You're saying instead that you're going to give back 25 per cent

of the 300 per cent overcharge to those people who behave themselves.

That's not fair!

With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your not interrupting me in

the end and I am glad that you pointed out the correct minister to whom

I should be addressing my remarks. Be that as it may, I think the whole

government side should be concerned about this unfair bill that has no

real merit whatsoever.

It is just what I've said it is: a political instrument. It's an

attempt to play politics with a group of people who are being

discriminated against. I certainly want to see them get a fair shake,

and I suppose that's why I can't vote against anything that you're

prepared to give out, but I think you are giving a very small small

share back to the people after taking so much away from them.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not going to go over the debate on second

reading because I recognize this defined bill.... You're offering a big

discount break to the young people who buy their insurance policies from ICBC,

provided they don't make use of the policy. You know, I realize that comes

from the bottom line, from the heart, so I'm not going to argue it further.

But I do ask the minister....

MR. KEMPF: Are you suggesting they should smash their cars up?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm suggesting that you're a great....

You're all heart, aren't you? You give them a policy and then say that

if you make a claim against it, no, you pay the full amount. If you

don't use it, you don't.... Boy, that's great! Now I want to ask the

minister: who are the people who will be entitled — among the young

people to whom this grant applies — to apply for a rebate? Presumably

the 25s, but what groups? People without points? What is it? What are

the criteria?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Chairman, it's the intention to pay out of this special $12 million

fund a grant — and this legislation deals with grants, not a portion of

a premium, but a grant — to under-age-25 drivers who do not have any

claims, or less than six points against them.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get excited

about this, but it is perhaps the worst piece of legislation that has

ever been presented in this Legislature.

All this says is that you can make regulations and you spend this

$12 million for young people. Now the criteria we have heard tonight

are that the young person under 25 has to have less than six points and

make no claim. Well, that young person might have a parked car at the

curb and be hit by a hit-and-run driver and he makes a claim.

No claims?

AN HON. MEMBER: Blameworthy.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, who decides who is blameworthy and

who isn't? What's your due process of law here? You bring in a bill

which is a legal miscarriage which merely says that in this kind of a

field you can make regulations.

Why don't you set out the criteria as to who is entitled? The

minister has said it is people with less than six points provided they

make no claims. That is purely ridiculous because there are all kinds

of innocent people under 25 years who have a perfect right to make a

claim under their policy; they have been perfectly sound and safe

drivers. You haven't put down the criteria in the legislation at all. I

ask the minister: does he stand by that statement that if you are a

young person under 25 and you make a claim

[ Page 3205 ]

you can't get a rebate?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, if the individual in question is not blameworthy there can be a claim outstanding.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister who

decides whether the member is blameworthy? What is the criterion for

"blameworthy"? Civil negligence in a civil action, or speeding, or

drunken driving, or a collision at an intersection where both parties

are equally at fault, or illegal parking and your car is hit while it

is illegally parked and you make a claim? What is "blameworthy"? That's

a great word. What are the criteria for that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the officials administering that in the motor-vehicle branch would take the advice of ICBC.

MR. MACDONALD: As I say, this is really the worst legislation that has ever been presented to a Legislature because....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe what the Premier is saying is that this

is as bad as the worst of ours, is it? Well, I think it's worse than

anything that we ever did . To say that if they're not

blameworthy.... Presumably Big Brother in the person of some official in

ICBC is going to make this adjudication in respect to a grant to a

young person that might run up to $250 if you pay $800 or so for a

policy, which is a lot of money to a young person. Some bureaucrat in

ICBC without any appeal or due process is trying to decide that one is

blameworthy and this one is not blameworthy and pay out the money

accordingly. I say that is atrocious legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the kids!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not against the kids. With this kind of

legislation where you offer them the policy that if they make a claim

they don't get the rebate, you're the people who are against the kids.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: So, Mr. Chairman, this is the minister's

answer, is it — that some official in ICBC will decide which of the

young people are blameworthy and which are not? I think that that is

very bad legislation.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 2) read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Jordan

Bawlf

Bawtree

Barrett

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

NAYS — I

Macdonald

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 80, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 (No. 3)

The House in committee on Bill 80; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I'm a little concerned

about the mechanics of this particular section, Mr. Chairman. I am

wondering by what method this is going to be identifiable if the

licensing is staggered — I believe this is the

section which staggers

the licence — by what means are we going to know whether or not a

vehicle has a valid licence? I am thinking of the present system whereby

[ Page 3206 ]

we have a coloured tag that affixes to our licence that indicates a

specific year. I am wondering if you are proposing to go to a series of

12 different coloured tags or a quarterly system. Just how are you

proposing to initiate this particular section?

HON. MR. DAVIS: In answer to the hon. member, this is a

proclaimable section. We do intend, over time, to move to cyclical

billing. In other words, the licence would run for 12 months from the

purchase of the vehicle, for example, and the anniversary date would

come up at the same date, the same day, the same month of the year year

after year. The precise mechanics as to how to administer this hasn't

been finally determined, however. So we are simply making it possible

to move to this system without finally having it fully developed. Of

course it would also have to be developed in full concert with ICBC and

so on.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I know it's difficult when you

are just bringing in something that is going to be initiated at some

future date. I am wondering, really, why we are talking about this Act

right now when that is such an important part of this Act, that it is

just laying the groundwork for something at a future date. My point is

that if you have a licence, say, for 1976 or 1977, how do you actually

know whether or not someone driving a vehicle with a 1976 licence in

the month of June is valid or not valid or whether his payment is due

in March or due in September.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, simply to give an example, in

the United Kingdom, where they're on cyclical billing and have been for

many, many years, there's a large decal that appears on the front

windshield which is easily read from the sidewalk by a policeman. It

has, in very large stamped letters, the date and so on, the anniversary

date of the vehicle.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, this is following up, Mr. Chairman,

really on my first question because here we are adding peace officers

in this

section which, of course, will provide for further employees to

do this particular job. I'm wondering, you know, really are we

proposing to get into a fairly extensive addition here, essentially to

police a staggered licensing? How many peace officers are you proposing

to add here? Is the reason for adding these people to cope with this

staggered sort of licensing which, in spite of all the explanations

about decals and so on, to me indicates quite a problem in actually

instigating and initiating this kind of situation?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the intent really is the

opposite. At the present time all licences become due on one date in

the year. ICBC and so on all become due at that same date and, in order

to spread the load around the year, cyclical billing is preferable. So

this is in the direction of greater efficiency. Really fewer people are

necessary and so on.

This particular section, however, is limited to adding to those who

presently administer the law sheriffs, weigh-scale operators and so on.

It enables them to carry out a function which is, at the present time,

only confined to police officers.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman,

section 14 should be amended,

section 14 and the proposed

section 54(2)(b), by deleting the words

"peace officer" and substituting "police officer."

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, again an amendment.

I move that

section 20 be amended by adding the following subsection

after proposed subsection (1)(a), "For the purpose of this

section

convicted or conviction includes an absolute or conditional discharge

and a finding of juvenile delinquency under the Juvenile Delinquents

Act (Canada) in relation to the matter at issue."

This clause appears earlier in a similar context and was omitted by error.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 3207 ]

Bill 80, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3), reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 80, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 3), read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 56, Mr. Speaker.

SHERIFFS ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 56; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections I to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 56, Sheriffs Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

POLLUTION CONTROL

(1967) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Pollution Control

(1967) Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

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

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I just have a short question of the minister. I

see we're raising the interest rate on overdue taxes from 8 per cent to

12 per cent and in the event — the hopeful event, I'm sure, in the view

of all this House — that the inordinately high interest rates we have

now go down, will the government give its undertaking that this will be

reviewed — in other words, it will more or less float up and down — and

you'll be prepared to bring in an amendment to change it when interest

rates do go down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We'd be quite prepared to do that, yes. Hopefully we can.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Water Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm just kind of puzzled here.

Section 1 says this Act may be cited as the Land Act, and this Act

repeals

section 1 on the grounds that it's redundant. I'm just a little

puzzled. What will the Act now be called? (Laughter.)

[ Page 3208 ]

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It's going to be called

an Act that's hard to follow.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: What's the name of the Act — the Mystery Act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I presume that the Land Amendment Act is as

short a title as they could get for it and therefore it's redundant to

call it anything else, but I'll check into that if it's of great

concern.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just a brief note on

section 10 which provides

for the removal of trespassers on Crown land. I would like to tell you

that in the type of riding I represent, Mr. Chairman, we have quite a

large number of people who are living on Crown land. I'm going to be

very brief — I know that everybody is in a hurry to get out of here —

but the fact is we do have people who are in some instances forced to

live on Crown land, and I hope that the minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, uses his powers with a great deal of discretion on this

particular

section of the Act.

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, the minister will be hearing from members

like myself if discretion is not used, because I can cite several

instances that have taken place over the last several years, in ridings

like mine, where people have been removed without warning and their

homes burned to the ground arbitrarily by various government

departments. Much of this must stop — at least the arbitrary type of

verdict where people are removed from Crown property without warning.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Land Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

DENTISTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 70, Dentistry Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

PHARMACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

[ Page 3209 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 71 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 76; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 3 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper on page 14. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the

Attorney-General if this

section has any implications for our

corporation tax income.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Member.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

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

MR. LAUK: Why so many amendments, Garde?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Tough bill.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

MR. LAUK: You should get a lawyer in that department.

Sections 18 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper on page 14. (See appendix.)

[ Page 3210 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, with all of these amendments, I would

ask the Attorney-General: during his practice of law how many

applications did he make under the slip-rule? (Laughter.)

Sections 38 to 56 inclusive approved.

section 57.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 57 as amended approved.

Sections 58 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested about this section.

I think it's a good idea, but would this prohibit the attorney of a

company whose head office was in Vancouver from living in Point Roberts?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He could live anywhere in the province, if you consider Point Roberts to be in the province.

Sections 67 to 77 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 76, Companies Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 76 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

CAPITAL FINANCING AUTHORITY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North):

Section 1(3) designates also

any educational institution designated by the regulations. Would this

cover, possibly, community colleges, and also could it cover private

institutions such as independent schools — for instance Trinity College?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it could.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. One amendment is to subsection

(5), line 8, after the words "convene a meeting of the board." We've

had some examples in the greater Victoria area

[ Page 3211 ]

where many days can go on and on before the actual board has a

meeting to deal with the problem arising from a suspension of a child.

I'm suggesting that it would be quite reasonable to place after the

word "board" that "the meeting be held within seven days."

Now the School Trustees Association has suggested that they support

the concept that there should be some time within which the meeting

should be called. They are not happy that seven days is enough. On the

other hand it seems to me, in the light of our experience in Victoria,

that it is a very important addition to the Act. There should at least

be some time limit stated within which the board has to hold a meeting

in order for the parent and the child to have a hearing with the board

in a matter as important as the suspension of a child from school.

It might facilitate the speed of our committee discussion, Mr.

Chairman, if I also mention the amendment in line 11 of subsection

(5) . The sentence ends "as the case may be." This quickly reads: "That the

meeting shall be held for the purpose of providing the parent or

guardian and the pupil with an opportunity to discuss with the board

the suspension or expulsion, as the case may be."

My amendment suggests that after the words "case may be" we should

add the words "at the meeting the pupil and parent or guardian shall be

permitted to be accompanied by a person of their choice who may assist

them in an advisory capacity, or, if so requested by the pupil and

parent or guardian, may act as their official representative."

Once again, this is simply an attempt to specify in more detail that

when a pupil is dismissed he or she and the parent should at least have

the opportunity to be accompanied by somebody when they meet with the

school board. It can be a rather forbidding experience for persons who

are not knowledgeable about the details as to how the Act works. Again,

in the Victoria situation is is not automatic that the parent and the

pupil will be allowed to be accompanied by an adviser. This amendment

simply writes into the Act the fact that it's very reasonable that they

should in fact have the option to be accompanied by an adviser or

representative.

I move these amendments, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendments.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr Chairman, I appreciate very much the

spirit with which these amendments are put forward, but I'm afraid that

at this time the government must reject them.

With respect to the first amendment that was put forward — within

seven days — that's a highly desirable target, but I'll be reporting to

the House in more detail as soon as I have all the facts together. But

the particular case of the Victoria school board, where a time of 55

days elapsed, was ...

MR. WALLACE: Sixty.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...not the fault of the board. There are two

sides. In a matter such as this the members of the school board are

available at all times, but if the parent refuses to come in, it

creates a very difficult situation. Obviously in a case where a pupil

is expelled you're going to try and get the parties together to come to

a satisfactory solution as rapidly as possible, but the imposition by

law of seven days can work possibly a greater hardship, in many cases,

on the parents than on the school board. The system really is working

fairly well. The amendments here are just to spell out a little more

clearly the procedure to be followed. But we did have an exceptional

circumstance here in Victoria which was, as you'll see when the full

report comes in, not entirely the fault of the school board.

Now with respect to the other aspect of the matter — that is,

bringing in a counsellor or lawyer, if you like — that is going to

transform what should be a closed and very sympathetic session of a

non-controversial nature, in the sense of being like a court of law,

into one which would be more like an open hearing at a court of law. It

isn't the kind of atmosphere that we wish to generate. It's the

difference between a family court and a county court. I understand what

the member is trying to put forward, but I am afraid that.... Well, we'll

look at it much more closely, but at this time we are rejecting these

amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON: If I understand correctly, this is the

section

which will make it possible for school boards to, in effect, demote

principals by transfer without any right of appeal other than a right

of appeal to the board that made the decision in the first instance, or

thereafter to the minister. The minister seems to me, as a busy person,

not really the best kind of appeal body to designate in this kind of

case.

I would like to ask the minister, first of all, to express my own

belief that some other kind of review, or appeal should be provided

for, and ask him if he has considered this problem and what kind of

alternate possibilities he sees, because, as he may be aware, it is

disturbing a large number of teachers in this province who are in

administrative positions, in the position of being principal, who will

really be pretty much at the mercy of boards. In areas where there's a

good labour relations climate, that may perhaps not matter, and

hopefully that will be throughout the province, but from time to time

there

[ Page 3212 ]

may be an opening here for actions of quite an arbitrary nature without any real due process.

I very much appreciate and sympathize with the need of school boards

to make transfers, particularly in areas with declining enrolment, but

on the other hand, when it can lead to such a tremendous overnight

change in the remuneration of a principal with really virtually no

independent appeal, it does seem to be dangerous. I would ask the

minister if he could comment on that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take a

small issue with one definition that the member made and that is that

it would be a demotion to reassign a teacher back into the classroom. I

think we want to, if we can, inculcate the idea that teaching in the

classroom is the highest level that a teacher can achieve. That's what

they're there for. They're not....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know what the financial

implications might be for somebody being reassigned. It might not be as

severe as some people have suggested. But in any event, the appeal to

the minister is an interim arrangement. You'll notice that it does not

come into effect until January 1 of next year. In the meantime, we've

invited the B.C. School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers

Federation to suggest to us the kinds of appeal procedures that might

be mutually acceptable and workable in practice.

So we've by no means decided that the appeal to the minister is

going to be the final method of doing these things. I might say that

under a number of Acts, appeals are made to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and it's an accepted procedure. Some

people would like to have a more formal and slightly different form for

that, and we're quite open to whatever suggestions might be made that

would be mutually agreeable.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I just want to make

the same comment that you can use any terms you like, but the fact is

that I can't think of too many other occupations in our modern day

society where a legitimate transfer can lead to a very substantial drop

in the income of the person being transferred for no reason which the

individual has brought on his or her own head. We hear so much about

other labour-management problems in other fields where the individual

workers by virtue of having a contract of one kind or another just

simply can't be moved around without some consideration being given to

the man or woman sustaining a drop in income.

I have an amendment to the next

section which relates to the larger

subject, not only of the authority to transfer and reduce a person's

income. But as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, the first

appeal is to the school board which transferred the person in the first

place. Now what kind of appeal is that, that an authorizing body

transfers the employee, the employee may lose several thousand dollars

of income and his first line of appeal is to the very people who

transferred him? Now, Mr. Chairman, that's got to be ridiculous. Then

the only next level of appeal is to the minister. To be fair, I agree

with the Liberal leader that the Minister of Education has his hands

full other than having specifically to be given the individual

responsibility of dealing with these kinds of matters from 74 different

school districts.

So I think this is a

section which has not been adequately prepared

in bringing forward this bill, and I would wonder if the minister

wouldn't reconsider. I don't agree necessarily that it's a demotion

because a principal might be moved from a larger school to a smaller

school, but I do ask the question: how many people in our society

today get transferred and have their income reduced simply because of

the formula applying to the number of classes or the number of pupils

in the school to which they are transferred?

I think the B.C. Teachers Federation has a very