1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2777 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Free Public Toilets Act (Bill 90). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2777

Oral Questions

B.C. Tel takeover. Mr. Bennett — 2777

Kamloops school district court case. Mr. Wallace — 2778

Meeting of the Premier with Hudson's Bay Oil president. Mr. Morrison — 2778

Gabriola ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 2778

Operations of motor vehicle agents. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 2779

Racial origin question on Alcohol and Drug Commission form. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2779

Involvement of D.A. Scrivener in out-of-province adjustments. Mr. McClelland — 2779

B.C. Involvement in uranium reconnaissance programme. Mr. Gibson — 2780

Proper Ministerial title for Minister Without Portfolio. Mr. Fraser — 2780

Ceding of provincial land to City of Vancouver. Mr. McGeer — 2780

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia, Act (Bill 85).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. King — 2780

Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 88).

Second reading. Hon. Ms. Young — 2789

Hospital Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 91).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2793

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1975 (Bill 28).

Committee stage.

Division on motion that the committee rise and report — 2795

Division on third reading — 2796

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 29).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Gibson — 2796

section 2. Mr. Gibson — 2796

Gasoline Tax

(1958) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 30).

Committee stage.

Division on third reading — 2798

Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 31).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Gibson — 2798

Report stage — 2798

Motive-fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 32).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Gibson — 2798

Report stage — 2799

Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 33).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Gibson — 2799

Report stage — 2799

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Gibson — 2799

Report stage — 2799

Committee of Supply: Department of Health estimates.

On vote 65. Mr. Smith — 2799

On vote 66. Mr. Wallace — 2800

On vote 67. Mrs. Jordan — 2800

On vote 69. Mr. Wallace — 2800

On vote 70. Mr. Morrison — 2801

On vote 71. Mr. Wallace — 2802

On vote 72. Mr. Wallace — 2804

On vote 73. Mrs. Jordan — 2804

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the other

Members to join with me in welcoming some of the members of the

Mount Elizabeth band from Kitimat together with their leader,

Mr. Dave Kimball, and the other chaperones who are visiting

Victoria and who will be playing a concert, I believe, in

Reynolds Junior Senior Secondary this evening. I would strongly

urge any Members who are free this evening and have nothing to

do, if they want to hear some excellent music from an excellent

band, to go and hear them.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased today that one of my constituents is

with us in the Speaker's gallery. He is a very good member of

my association. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Grant

Carson.

Introduction of bills.

FREE PUBLIC TOILETS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, Bill 90, Free Public Toilets

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

B.C. TEL TAKEOVER

MR. W. R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of Transport and Communications: in regard to

the Minister's announcement that it will no longer be necessary

to expropriate or take over B.C. Telephone because of a

transfer of authorities or regulations from the federal

government, which has been denied by the Hon. Gérard Pelletier,

would the Minister be prepared to table correspondence

outlining these authorities with the House?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications)

: First of all, I'm not responsible for the

interpretation that was put

on my remarks. The statement is based on discussions with Mr. Pelletier

and myself at federal-provincial meetings and in bilateral discussions,

one with the other. We are not in disagreement and, of course, any

prelude to any takeover would require the transference of jurisdiction

back to the province, where it was until 1916. That's the first step in

anything. It doesn't mean we have to take it over, but we can have

control without that being necessary.

MR. BENNETT: Would you file it? Are you going to file the

correspondence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the best of my recollection, there is

no correspondence, but I'll check. It was straight bilateral

discussion.

MR. BENNETT: As a supplemental for further clarification:

would the authority that the Minister is discussing, that he's

going to have transferred from Ottawa, plus the provincial

authorities, override the federal charter of B.C. Telephone,

which is

an Act of parliament?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the discussion that is taking

place: how you overcome the fact that there is a federal

statute. That's the discussion that's taking place.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, as a

supplementary: did I understand the Minister correctly, that

his remarks were misinterpreted by the paper and that first

step is first of all transfer of jurisdiction, and the second

step still is the takeover of B.C. Tel by the provincial

government? Is that what you said?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. I didn't say that.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask

the Minister if the government will now be selling their shares

in the British Columbia Telephone Co. Will the government be

selling the shares now that you're not going to take it

over?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't expect so, but that will be a

matter of government policy, and not subject to answer in

question period.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, did I

understand the Minister correctly in his first reply that the

reason why the provincial government wished jurisdiction over

the B.C. Telephone Co. is that constitutional difficulties in

taking over the B.C. Telephone Co. would be removed? Is that

the motive for the government asking for this jurisdictional

change?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I've said it previously, and I say it

again: what the Province of British Columbia is asking for is

exactly the same right as that enjoyed by this province until

1916, and the same rights enjoyed by other provinces of Canada

to regulate public utilities operating within their own

province.

[ Page 2778 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Hear, hear! Right. To the

Attorney-General....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I think that the B.C. Telephone Co.

should be under provincial jurisdiction; I don't say it should

necessarily be under provincial ownership.

To the Attorney-General: in view of the statement....

What's happened to him? He was here when I started off.

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Hon. Member save his question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll wait. I did see the Minister earlier

today, Mr. Speaker, and in the hopes that he will return to the

chamber — he was here at the beginning — I'll just wait with my

question.

KAMLOOPS SCHOOL DISTRICT COURT CASE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Education, with regard to Kamloops school

district's lengthy civil suit which involves the school

superintendent, the supervisor of elementary education, school

principals and board members: has the Minister arranged for a

replacement superintendent to supervise the school district

activities in Kamloops while the superintendent is occupied in

the court? Can the Minister assure the parents of the Kamloops

area that satisfactory services will continue to be provided

while six principals, the director and the supervisors, as well

as members of the school board, are all in court defending

themselves?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Member, I will

take that question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary that is very important is that

the Kamloops school board, I understand, has agreed to pay for

the legal costs involved by the school board members and

parents to the tune of $25,000. I wonder if the Minister has

been informed of this and whether, in fact, the Public Schools

Act extends this autonomy to the Kamloops school board to pay

the defence costs of school board members and parents giving

evidence on behalf of the school board.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not prepared to answer that question

here today, so I will take it as notice.

MEETING OF THE PREMIER

WITH HUDSON'S BAY OIL PRESIDENT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Premier and Minister of Finance. Is it true that yesterday

the chairman of the board of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, who is

also the president of Continental Oil, spent some time with you

in your office?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it true that the president of Hudson's

Bay Oil...and what else?

MR. MORRISON: And gas. He is also the president of

Continental Oil.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's his name?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Glenn.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was not in my office.

MR. MORRISON: Did you meet someone else from his department

then, yesterday? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member must

check his accuracy before asking that sort of question. He

should station himself at the door.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was the someone else's name?

MR. MORRISON: That's what I was going to ask you, Mr.

Premier. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we can run question period that

way, surely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can you explain to me how come they

haven't got...?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): They're in such

great demand that we're in short supply at the moment. That's

the only problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

GABRIOLA FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: I would like the Minister of Transport and

Communications to hear the question. On the subject of the

proposed Gabriola Island B.C. ferry terminal, in view of the

fact that the Nanaimo Regional District Board has unanimously

indicated that it does not favour a new terminal at that

location, has the Minister now given instructions to

[ Page 2779 ]

his department or officials to abandon any further study of

such a site?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As you know, I had a meeting with the

Nanaimo city council just last week, and this submission from

the regional board will be given very careful consideration

before any decision is made.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. It is on precisely the same

subject.

Is the Minister or any member of his staff for B.C. Ferries

examining one alternative which has been suggested, and that is

harbour commission land in downtown Nanaimo?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everything is being examined, Mr. Member.

I can assure you of that.

OPERATIONS OF

MOTOR VEHICLE AGENTS

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked

me a question the other day relative to the issuing of certain

permits to travel agencies in the northern areas of the

province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You mentioned one in Mackenzie and one

somewhere else. There are 43 motor vehicle sub-offices, some of

them agencies, some of them village council clerks and

municipal clerks who are authorized to do the work of the motor

vehicle branch. All of these agencies are continuing to fulfil

their normal functions.

In addition, I would like to say that the original statement

which I made was based on an assessment of the situation by

members of the government employees union and the Public

Service Commission. I am informed that since that time the

further examination of that order has been made by the Public

Service Commission and by the B.C. Government Employees Union,

with the result that both of those groups are of the opinion

that any operation that is and has been handled solely and only

by the motor vehicle branch or its agencies should be

continued.

These cover temporary operation permits, temporary demonstration and

testing permits, the restricted route permits, farm tractor "F" licence

plates, farm truck "A" licence plates, quarterly (

T) licence plates,

industrial (

X) licence plates, registration and licensing of imported

vehicles from other jurisdictions, pro-rate licence plates, transporter

licence plates, manufacturer licence plates, trailer floater licence

plates, repairer licence plates, dealer licence plates, original driver

licence certificates, renewal driver certificates and substitution

driver certificates. All of these are recommended, after these

discussions between the Public Service Commission and the B.C.

Government Employees Union, to be continued. I will so order that

procedure to take place.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the purpose of question

period is to give information to the public about matters not

otherwise available?

RACIAL ORIGIN QUESTION ON

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION FORM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In an attempt to get information not

otherwise available to the public, may I ask the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) why the Alcohol and Drug

Commission intake and discharge form requires identification of

racial origin?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I'll take that

question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

INVOLVEMENT OF D.A. SCRIVENER

IN OUT-OF-PROVINCE ADJUSTMENTS

MR. McCLELLAND: A question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. I refer to the names of independent insurance

claims adjusters that are being used in out-of-province

adjustment of ICBC claims. I note in Calgary a company called

Scrivener Countrymen Western Ltd., and a company in Regina,

D.A. Scrivener Co. Ltd., 300 Gordon Building in Regina. I'd

like to ask the Transport Minister whether the Scrivener listed

in those two companies is the same D.A. Scrivener who is a

vice-president of claims of ICBC. If he is, does he still have

an active interest in those companies? If he does, does that

not constitute some kind of conflict of interest?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I suppose the Member checked out his

facts before he made that accusatory statement. But I would

suggest....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, now. There are ways of finding out

who has ownership of companies. I'll certainly check it, but

it's an accusatory statement.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's a question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ahhh, your questions are accusatory. I'll

check it out, but I suggest that you should have checked it out

before you asked the question.

[ Page 2780 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he did.

B.C. INVOLVEMENT IN

URANIUM RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMME

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Question to the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Since approximately

50 per cent of the province is considered favourable for

uranium prospecting, and since the Premier has expressed a

concern about the supply of that mineral, I would ask him why

our province is the only one that has opted out of a

federal-provincial reconnaissance programme with the Geological

Survey of Canada for uranium.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

I will take that as notice.

PROPER MINISTERIAL TITLE

FOR MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier

a question yesterday. He asked me to have the document in

writing — I gave it to him — with reference to the Minister

Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) using the name "Minister

for Northern Affairs." I'd like to ask the Premier what

authority he has to use that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't think the Member wanted me to

bring this up again, Mr. Speaker. But now that he mentions it,

I have the document in front of me, and it says clearly across

the top — the document he sent me — "Minister Without Portfolio

(Northern Affairs)." The Member is confused.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the body of the announcement — that's

where the Member is confused. So it depends on where you want

to read on this sheet, Mr. Member, but I will try and interpret

your confusion.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It says that Langley did very well in the

tax-sharing deal. (Laughter.)

CEDING OF PROVINCIAL LAND

TO CITY OF VANCOUVER

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of

the Premier as Government Leader.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What party do you represent?

MR. McGEER: The independent party — the third party in the

Legislature. I would have thought it would be easy for a

three-man party to get recognized.

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the Premier is whether

or not he and his government as a policy intend to stand behind

commitments made to the City of Vancouver with respect to

turning over provincial government land to the City of

Vancouver: specifically seven acres of land in Jericho, a

commitment made by the former government, and approximately one

acre in downtown Vancouver, a commitment made by the Member for

Vancouver Centre — both government policy, both saying they

would be turned over to the City of Vancouver, and both

repudiated recently by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Member to

show me the written agreements. Would you send them over?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'll do that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you.

MR. McGEER: I gather the Premier is saying he doesn't wish

to stand behind those agreements.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said, send me the written

agreements.

MR. McGEER: You've got the correspondence in your

office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Any debate is out of order.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're going to proceed with second

readings of Bill 85, Bill 88 and Bill 91; then we'll move to

committee on the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Barrett'

s) bills.

Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 85.

LABOUR EDUCATION CENTRE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this is a

brief little bill which I have discussed on numerous occasions

in the House and

[ Page 2781 ]

elsewhere. It simply enables the government to set up a

labour education centre in the Province of British Columbia, a

centre that will be devoted to providing training in the field

of industrial relations. It's not strictly for the trade union

people to participate in; we expect that there will be

management involvement in the courses that will flow from this

centre also.

Many people in the public domain and certainly many people

on the opposition side of this House, as well as on the

government side, have called for more responsibility at the

bargaining table, a more sophisticated approach to the many

problems involved in bargaining and industrial relations. I

think that that's a valid demand to make on the trade union

movement and on management in this province.

But surely, if we are going to demand that kind of

responsibility, we have an obligation, Mr. Speaker, to ensure

that these people — these practitioners of industrial relations — have access to the kind of training and to the kind of

information and knowledge that can serve to make collective

bargaining a more responsible and a more sophisticated process,

with the hopeful consequence that there will be fewer

breakdowns in the process that result in work stoppages, be

they lockouts or be they strike action by trade unions.

This bill is basically enabling legislation, as I indicated

earlier, which allows the government to set up a board of

governors, as it were, and to consider a perpetual fund of $5

million so that there might be annual funding for such an

institution in the Province of British Columbia.

It will allow for a good deal of autonomy in terms of the

kind of curriculum that the people involved in industrial

relations feel is most appropriate to their needs. It's my hope

that through the use of existing facilities many worthwhile

courses, both structured courses, correspondence courses,

perhaps audiovisual material, lecture material and so on, will

be able to flow to all parts of this province so that we might

reach out to the rank-and-file trade-union member, to the

individual who has been elected to public office, on city

councils, police commissions and so on, or to the small

businessman going into business and employing people for the

first time so that they might benefit from the kind of

instruction, the kind of science — and it is indeed a science — which

goes into collective bargaining. I think this is

something that is long overdue. I think in a number of years

some positive association of this kind, by management and

labour involving themselves in a process that teaches them

something about playing their skills and facing their

responsibilities more seriously, will achieve great benefit to

the community of British Columbia.

I move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In rising in my place to

speak in second reading of this bill, I think this is a measure that

the official opposition will welcome along, I suppose, with all of the

parties of the House, although I can't speak for them. I really think

that if we were to try to distil the content of this bill into a

couple of simple phrases, we would say that the first job of such a

labour education centre will be to find out what labour and management

have in common and agree on, not what they disagree about. From that

base, I would hope that we would break ground in new directions and in

directions where both labour and management hold certain fixed opinion,

or have held certain fixed opinions in the past, which are not

altogether relative to today's society and the place we are at in

industrial relationships.

I believe that, more than anything else, this bill reflects

a desire to become more conscious of public outcry that we hear

more and more often today — that they are sick and tired of this

continual confrontation between labour and management where it

is often questionable who wins and who loses in the final

outcome, except that the public are quite often and most often

the ones who are inconvenienced by those actions.

When you take into consideration some of the problems we

have had with lengthy strikes, then lockouts, walkouts,

picketing and all the rest that is involved in labour strife

with both labour and management, you often have to ask

yourself, when they finally come to a settlement of a

collective agreement, who has really won and who has lost when

you take into consideration everything that is involved,

including lost time, lost wages and all the rest of it.

I believe that this is a first step in trying to bring about

some sort of recognition by both sides. I think that both

labour and management today are really concerned about this

whole matter. More and more I hear from people who are in the

labour movement that they find boredom in the job they are

involved in because it is repetitious day after day after day — a

concern, more than anything else, that either semi-automated

or fully automated plants have brought about a feeling of

frustration. As individual people, they want to be heard, and

they want their opinions to be heard. I hope they are getting

this message through to the people who represent them at the

bargaining table. I think they are.

By the same token, I think that management has to become

more conscientious about the problems involved. This must be

one of the first steps that we take, to provide a centre of

education. As a Member of the official opposition, I would

encourage both labour and management to seriously consider

enrolment of some of their personnel in such an institution so

that we get to a position in British Columbia where more and

more of these potential

[ Page 2782 ]

disputes are resolved around the bargaining table before a

contract comes up for renewal. That way, we may experience a

period of industrial peace in the Province of British Columbia.

I don't think it is altogether possible, but I do think we can

at least strive toward that goal.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to second reading on

this bill, I find this an acceptable piece of legislation, and

one which I hope both labour and management will receive

without too many reservations to start with.

They'll give it a try and they'll lend some advice and

suggestions as to what they would like to see in the matter of

the development of that. Therefore I think the Minister is wise

in leaving it fairly flexible.

There is going to have to be some flexibility in developing

this sort of programme. We don't know altogether the problems

of management or labour, because generally we're prone to

listen to one side or the other, not to the exclusion of the

other side but at least in a manner which gives sympathy to one

side as compared to the other.

I would hope that we can progress beyond that point.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the only salvation for a province

as highly industrialized as British Columbia is to have more

mutual concern and respect for each other's problems, whether

we be labelled as management or labour, and that in doing so we

may be entering into a period where, instead of labour strife

and strikes being commonplace in the order of the day, we enter

into a period of relative ease and tranquility in

labour-management relations. I know that this is what the

public are asking for in increasing numbers throughout the

Province of British Columbia.

Other than that I haven't much more to say in second

reading, Mr. Speaker, except to say that we support the idea,

and we hope that the Minister, in setting up this education

centre, will solicit the help and the suggestions of labour,

management and all those people that are not either labour or

management but are certainly involved as third parties whenever

labour or management come to an impasse.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We, too, will be supporting

this bill in second reading There are, however, a number of

questions that come up. It appears, to us, from what the

Minister has said, that the bill is misleading as presently

written, and Labour Relations Education Centre of British

Columbia Act would be a more appropriate title.

I presume amendments will come in to reflect the fact that this

really is not just a college for trade-union officials or trade-union

rank and file but also for management and the small businessmen as

well. I'm sure the Minister will welcome an amendment to that effect

which will better reflect what he talked about in his introductory

remarks, which, in actual fact,

did give a somewhat different complexion to this bill than we

could have got from reading it.

I would like to ask him also another question. The Premier

has talked with some heat about the need for universities to

get involved in novel and ambitious and exciting new

programmes. I would ask the Minister why this particular bill

comes up in this way, to set up a separate institution with

very peculiar separate financing provisions, which you find

back in

section 10 and thereafter, when it strikes me that the

universities themselves could well have got involved in this

very effectively. Perhaps a little encouragement might have

been given to them to do so, rather than throwing in the $5

million talked about in

section 9. It's a question which

perhaps the Minister might look at when he comes to close the

debate.

There is one thing I would like to say before we go any

further. I would like to pay tribute to the mediators and the

arbitrators in the Province of British Columbia who have one of

the most onerous jobs that I think you can imagine. I don't

know how they preserve their patience and sanity in that very,

very difficult job they have. I presume that this will make

their job easier, and that's a good thing. We have been very

well served in this province by some very dedicated people. I

think this Act will make their job easier because, of course,

hopefully the areas of difference will be slightly fewer and

the distance between positions will be slightly less.

So I thank the mediators and arbitrators working in this

province, under the Minister's department as well as elsewhere,

who have done such a good job.

This appears to be a college which will duplicate the

services of some of the training programmes of the larger

unions, and of course of the larger companies as well. Again,

perhaps the Minister would like to indicate how this will merge

in with the training programmes of the larger unions which are

very highly organized and very effective as well.

Perhaps also in closing the debate the Minister would

indicate to the House how the division between himself and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) on the question of

education, technical education, apprenticeship, labour

education of this nature, has been settled. I hear odd stories

back and forth about the pushing and the pulling on the

question of technical education and apprenticeship programmes

and qualifying programmes. It is about time we had a clear

statement in this House as to what precisely the line of

division is.

I don't know whether my eyes deceive me, but I believe that

the two Ministers concerned have both nodded their heads very,

very slightly. Perhaps they.... Oh, the Minister of Education

has made it very clear she would like to have this clear

distinction made for all time as well. The Minister of Labour

has also indicated that he has some sympathy towards

[ Page 2783 ]

this point of view.

We have all been involved in discussions with people very,

very concerned about this difficulty. Where does technical

training come into the purview of the Minister of Labour? Where

does it come into the purview of the Minister of Education? My

own feelings are irrelevant one way or another. I think a

statement, however, from a government Minister on this aspect

at this time would certainly not be amiss.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly will be voting for the bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we certainly

appreciate the intent of this bill. Indeed, anything that holds

out the hope of improving the labour-management situation in

the province when we have had so many disruptions in the past

is to be welcomed.

I am a little disappointed, however, that the word

"management" doesn't appear anywhere in the bill. The people

who are clearly defined in the bill are trade-union employees,

staff and officers and so on. Nowhere in the bill can I find

the work "employer" or "management", or any definition or

reference to the other half of the equation. We all know that

the importance of making the equation work in the

labour-management field is a balance of power. It seems to me

very strong that a bill which from an educational point of view

is intended to prevent problems doesn't have the word

"management" anywhere in it. I know that it refers to "others

involved in the collective bargaining process", but having

defined members of trade unions and others so clearly in the

bill, I think it is a little unfortunate that the phrase used

to cover the other side of the bargaining equation is just

referred to as "others involved in the collective bargaining

process."

As the Liberal leader said, I expect the Minister will

probably have an amendment that might clarify the overall

intent of the bill, When he introduced the bill, the Minister

made it very plain this afternoon that it is just non union

people and union employees for whom the centre is intended. I

think the bill could clarify that with some amendments.

The basic purpose of educating people involved in the bargaining

process is excellent, I think. The Minister of Education would

certainly agree with this. The committee that we toured the province

with last year, dealing with teacher-trustee bargaining, demonstrated

in the most devastating way to me the degree to which bargaining

between teachers and trustees is an absolute charade. Trustee after

trustee came before our committee and either very directly or in a sort

of an apologetic way made it plain that they would rather have nothing

to do with the business of bargaining with teachers. They felt they did

not have the expertise, they didn't have the time and they didn't have

the supporting staff. They felt unequal in the battle — if I can call

it a battle. Perhaps

one should call it negotiation. They felt very unequally

equipped to deal with the bargaining for teacher salaries,

which as we all know is a very high fraction of the total bill

for education. We have all been debating that at great length

on recent bills in this House.

So if we had to pick, to be brief, just one specific example

where the provision of this kind of education training and

facility would be most valuable, I would have to say that it is

in the realm of trustee-teacher bargaining. If I might look

down the road a little way, I think it would be very

interesting, since the trustees want to bargain centrally

through one agency, whether in the light of this centre and

hopefully its success the trustees will finish up wanting to

bargain locally because they might find that with the expertise

and the ability to more effectively take

part in the bargaining

process, they might reverse their decision. This would

certainly be a relief to all of us, including the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), if both sides of that argument

could decide on the best way to bargain.

We certainly support the principle of the bill, but I would

just like to sound one or two notes of caution, which I suppose

is what many people think the Conservative Party always does.

Some people think it does nothing else, but I am trying to

dispel that image.

We are in favour of the principle of the bill but, first of

all, I notice that the board will have up to 16 members, and

that's a sizeable number. I just want to say to the Minister

that I hope great caution and judgment will be used in not

creating another large bureaucracy, however well intended,

which in the course of time becomes almost an organization

justifying its own existence rather than meeting the needs for

which the Minister set up the centre.

In that regard, in thinking of my criticisms yesterday of

the rentalsman's office where neutrality is not always in

evidence, I would hope that the cabinet which appoints the

members to the board of this institute would also be most

sensitive to the dangers of appointing persons with clear

political identities.

The neutrality, as close as it is possible to be neutral,

and the apolitical natural of the people serving on this board,

I think, would be very important. I hope it won't boil down to

eight union people and eight management people, for example,

where however much the Minister would not want controversy to

arise in deciding the curriculum.... The Minister made it very

plain in introducing second reading that he hoped there would

be great flexibility and autonomy in deciding what the

curriculum of this educational centre should be. I think that

is a good idea.

Obviously, with the rapidly changing times and

[ Page 2784 ]

many of the new factors that become involved in bargaining.... I mean, just a few years ago nobody ever talked about COLA in

agreements; it has just been in the last few years that it has become

almost a very accepted thing that every employee will want a cost-of-living adjustment in an agreement. With the changing times

there has to be flexibility in the curriculum.

On the other hand, as I say, if the board is constituted other than

by people with neutrality and lack of active political identity and

participation, then I think there could be real problems, both in the curriculum area and in the spending of funds.

I notice that it is possible for a person in the public service to

be appointed to the board. I would just like to ask the Minister if, in

winding up the debate, he would mention whether that includes MLAs. I

think it would not be a good idea to have MLAs on this board. The

general definition used in this bill is "individuals in the public

service." Since we are all being paid by the public, I would consider

myself to be included in that provision. That may not be the intent of

the Minister. I hope it isn't, because I

think to have active political individuals on that board would be

very unwise. I would like the Minister to be congratulated for one

phrase in the bill. I know we don't dissect a bill in second reading,

but I think it is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first

bill I can recall which clarifies itself in that paragraph, so very

vital

in every bill, called "powers." This Minister is breaking new ground.

Instead of saying "or otherwise acquire," leaving the opposition a

field day to

scream about expropriation, the Minister has said "or acquire otherwise than by expropriation."

That is a historic day in this House when we have a bill where the

government not only argues as to what it means but it puts it in clear,

and real property, will not expropriate. We may joke — and the Minister

is enjoying the joke — but I think it is a very creditable effort on

the Minister's part when he has heard debates in this House involving

the Attorney-General in particular, who, with his legal training, said

this amount of explanation was not necessary. But this Minister has put

it in the bill. I think this is a tremendous step forward in that

regard.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

When I talked about the fear of a large bureaucracy and a large

board and a whole bunch of bureaucrats getting jobs for themselves.... I

would just like to ask the Minister another question regarding funding.

As I read the bill, $5 million is going into a fund, the interest from

which will finance the institute. But at a later

section in another

part of the bill it would appear, as I read it at least, that over and

beyond that $5 million the cabinet has the power from time to time to

put additional sums in the pot. It seems to me there is not much point

in saying it is up to $5 million in one

section and then just a few

lines further down the bill.... I may be wrong in my reading of the

bill, but it seems to me that the government actually says it will be

putting up to $5 million in the fund and then in the very next

paragraph, I think, it gives the cabinet added powers from time to time

to add more money to the fund.

Really, if my reading is correct, I would have to say that

this part of the bill dealing with the financing of the centre

needs to be amended, or take out the $5 million figure. You

might as well just say that the government from time to time

shall put in such money as required. But to say that it is a

limit of $5 million in one paragraph and then to go on and give

them unlimited capacity to fund it I think is a very dangerous

provision.

The other question of financing is the terminology used to

say that the board shall spend money as it consider

appropriate. I wonder if the Minister means that this is

complete autonomy in funding as well as in curriculum. The

exact phrase is: "The board may use the income as it considers

appropriate." I take that to mean that that is also complete

autonomy, but I am still not certain. Perhaps the Minister can

clear this up as to what limits there are on spending or what

he envisages as the limit of spending and the capacity or

authority of the board progressively to employ more staff.

As I say, one of the biggest concerns we've had on this side

of the House from this government is the tendency to create

various arms of government funded under different Ministers

where we are concerned that there is a realistic and reasonable

check on, first of all, the great increase in staff, and,

secondly, the accompanying increase in expenditures.

So although I have raised these points, some of them in

criticism and some of them, perhaps, in ignorance and not

understanding all that the bill means to say, I do feel that

the basic principle is sound. The bill has our strong

support.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

the Member for Oak Bay in his remarks complimented the Minister

for using clear language in the bill in regard to not having

any power to expropriate. I do as well.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said in opening. I trust,

therefore, that he will take care to make rather massive amendments in

the clear wording in the operative

section which is

section

Section

3 makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of this education centre

is for trade unions and their membership. I wonder why it would even be

contemplated that such an educational centre would so limit the people

who might take advantage of the

[ Page 2785 ]

educational programmes offered.

Certainly we have to approve any move the government may

make with regard to improving the quality of people who are

involved in the collective bargaining process. That obviously

means members of trade unions, officers of trade unions,

members of employer groups, officers of employer groups. But

also, in the world in which we live with labour relations

playing such an important role, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

there should now be the opportunity for people who are not

members of trade unions or of employer groups to attend an

educational facility and train themselves to take a

part in the

collective bargaining process.

There is no reason why a young man or woman, having

completed their formal education, should not have the

opportunity of making the decision to spend their lives or a

part of their lives in the labour relations field. Therefore

they should be trained for it before they embark upon it.

There's no reason why they should get their training by some

sort of an apprenticeship programme in either the field of

management or labour. They might eventually feel that they

should move into one or the other of those fields. But surely

it would be an advantage to the whole process if they received

some specialized training in advance.

Therefore if I am to understand the thrust that the Minister

has for this particular idea, I hope that before the committee

stage we will see rather extensive amendments to

section 3 to

remove the limits that are now placed upon the enrolment in

such a centre.

It's true that the Minister of Finance is authorized to

provide moneys without limit for this purpose, not only to

establish the fund, which will be used for the perpetual

operation of the centre, but also such other moneys as may be

required to initiate this new venture. It's this part that

gives me some concern, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why, when we are in the midst of looking very

carefully at the whole structure of education in British

Columbia and of the institutions that we have providing

education for all our people both young and old, we are now

contemplating building another centre for a very specialized

purpose. Perhaps the Minister can convince me that we need to

have a new institution with a new campus, new buildings, new

grounds, new whatever may be required in order to make it

function when we already have vocational schools, community

colleges and universities.

I wonder why the government has not simply brought in legislation to

establish an education centre foundation, authorizing that foundation

with moneys made available for this special purpose to see that such

facilities are provided in the province. Then they could be provided by

way of contract with one of the existing educational institutions that

we have. If necessary, it may have to go on its own and build its own

facility. But if it could be found that within the community college

structure, within the university structure, all of the facilities there

available could be used for the building of proper courses and

programmes, then why not take this opportunity and allow this board

controlling the foundation to utilize moneys to ensure that the proper

instructors are provided, the proper courses are provided and, indeed,

to provide assistance to those people who would enrol in such a course

to come for whatever period of time to that institution?

I appreciate that to make the centre available to people the

length and breadth of the province will be a difficulty. But it

will be a difficulty even if we establish a new centre with its

own buildings — the same difficulty in locating that centre as

there would be in choosing one of the existing

universities.

I would commend the Minister to look at the legislation that

was introduced yesterday by the Attorney-General with regard to

the legal services commission. They have similar moneys; they

have similar responsibilities with regard to the provision of

facilities and services, but they do have, specifically, the

authority to contract with existing organizations who can fill

the role in that legislation. I suggest that the same should be

available here, rather than the 16-member board with an

executive director and all its own attendant staff in order to

carry out its function.

I'm sure that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

would be delighted to have the opportunity of recommending to

the Minister, or to the board once it is established, just

where it would be appropriate to establish the training

facilities that this Act envisages. I think what the Minister

has done is a step forward. I think he's to be commended for

taking this direction, but I would hope that in taking it, we

don't have to establish another encumbering structure which

becomes a burden itself to carry. If additional moneys are

required, far better that we have more students going, and

assisted by the government, than it is to build a framework of

an organization with staff and people only to keep the centre

going.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): 1, too, am very pleased

to see this Act put forward, and will be very happy to support

it. But there are one or two things I would like to

mention.

I sincerely hope that when the Labour Education Centre is introduced

there will be a considerable number of women on the board. I think

that's most important because, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it has

been said over and over again in this Legislature, it has been pointed

out numerous times — and it really doesn't have to be pointed out to

anyone — that women are still in the lower wage-scale bracket in

[ Page 2786 ]

labour, as well as in the salaried fields. There has to be

something to improve women's status in relation to labour

management. Also, there are far fewer women in management.

There are a great number of women who are very, very capable of

it, and I think they should be encouraged to be able to get into

positions where they can benefit from the Labour Education

Centre, and where they can learn a little bit more about labour

management in the process.

Secondly, I notice that in

section 3 it states that the

purpose is to engage in educational activities for numbers of

trade unions, with the objective of fostering improved

relations, et cetera. I sincerely hope that people who are

outside the trade unions are also encouraged to be able to take

full advantage of a labour education school of this type.

I would hope that there would be some type of liaison

between the Labour Education Centre and the high schools, not

just post-secondary education. I think it has to filter down

into the high school. There are quite a number of young people

who are taking technical, vocational and trades training in the

high schools, and they have to have a little bit more than just

the training for their particular trade. I think they have to

have an understanding of what the labour-management

relationship is all about. That is something which I believe we

fail to give them.

There are a great number of boys, particularly — I would say

both boys and girls — who are between the ages of 15 and 17,

have not completed their high school, but are ready to drop

out. I know some of them have been transferred into some of the

special type of programmes, but not all. Before they get into

that position where they will drop out without having any

understanding of what goes on in the trade union movement or

what goes on as an intercourse between labour and management, I

think they should be able to benefit from something of this

kind.

Also, I would say that if people who are not in the trade

union movement have an opportunity of benefiting from this,

then it might encourage them to become members of trade unions.

There will be a flow into this thinking in relation to good

organizational work of the trade union movement. They will be

able to understand bargaining processes better and be able to

understand what is required in negotiation without going too

intensively into the adversary system.

But mainly, as I said at the beginning, I certainly hope

that women will be encouraged to take advantage of this labour

education school, as well as men.

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

think this bill embodies a good principle, and I intend to

support it, along with my party.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You never know with the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke), Mr. Speaker. Things are going well, and then he says

something he doesn't have to say. But I'm going to ignore

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the Minister for free toilets

today.

MR. GIBSON: The principle is right because a lot of the

problems in this field arise from a lack of dialogue. When you

turn on your radio or read the newspapers, labour disputes are

always in the news. To a certain extent that is unavoidable

because it is such a basic part of the fabric of our society.

But to some extent we can get it out of the news by people

better understanding what they are doing.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) remarked on the

fact that when the education committee was holding hearings on

the collective bargaining process in the school system, the

school trustees time after time showed a tremendous lack of

confidence in their ability to take

part in the collective

bargaining process. That is one of the reasons they were trying

to devolve it off into a central collective bargaining

organization. I think it is better done at the local level, and

I think that this kind of institution can make it more feasible

at the local level. That applies, of course, not only to school

trustees, but to others in a management or quasi-management

position. Small businesses just organized, and so on, should be

able to benefit considerably from this.

I share the concern expressed by several Members with

respect to the language of the Act, which doesn't seem to

coincide exactly with the Minister's thoughts on who should be

a part of this institution. I would say it should cover all

elements of the collective bargaining process in British

Columbia that can properly benefit from this kind of

institution. I would hope that the language of the bill might be

somewhat modified to bring it more into line with the

Minister's own expressed thoughts.

I would ask him if, in closing second reading, he might give

the House some indication of — obviously not the names — the

kinds of people that might be on the board of directors. Does

he have in mind, for example, that various elements of society

would be represented, some management, some labour, some

academic, some government, and so on, or does he intend to

proceed in different ways in choosing the directors?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it is not up to this House, but rather up

to the directors appointed under this

[ Page 2787 ]

legislation, if and when it passes, to determine the

programme. I would want to go on record as hoping that the

programme doesn't only include things such as labour law and

bargaining, but that it includes as well such questions as

economics and political science and sociology, because all of

these things relate to the collective bargaining process in one

way or another and can be useful to people, whether or not they

are on the labour-management side of the table, in better

communicating back to those they represent and in communicating

to each other the salient features involved in the bargaining

process.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I say again that I will be

supporting this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Minister to close the

debate.

HON. MR. KING: I will just try to respond as briefly as I

can to some of the points made by the opposition speakers. I do

want to express my gratitude at the support the opposition has

expressed for the principle and the intent of the bill. I think

it's an encouraging sign that we all recognize the need for

improved expertise at the bargaining table, which is basically

what this bill is all about.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) made some

points that I would just like to briefly comment on. He

indicated that it was important that the parties identify areas

upon which they can agree. Well, I think that's a good, sound

principle of industrial relations, but I don't think it is

really an appropriate kind of structure to develop in what is

basically an educational exercise. I think this is a more

conceptual kind of approach to industrial relations, one in

which I do not feel it necessary to try and identify and

isolate parties from one another, but rather, in the spirit of

the Labour College of Canada, which I had the good fortune to

attend, to study the kind of things that are of benefit to all

parties at the bargaining table.

The course content of the Labour College of Canada certainly

did include — and I have stated many times in this House and

also publicly that it would be the intent here to provide

similar course content which would include these — courses in

sociology, economics and political science.

The right to lock out or the right to strike is very much

the exercise of power, and there's a science to the exercise of

power. I think people should have some knowledge of the

implications of the use of that kind of power. Sociology, group

relationships in society, the inter-relationships, the impact

of one action by a trade union or by a management group on the

total community — it's unquestionably inherent in the whole

process.

The Member for North Peace River also mentioned the win-lose

syndrome that we have moved into in collective bargaining in British

Columbia, and I agree with that. I think too often it has been a

win-lose syndrome, and while one party may win one year, there is

usually a whipsaw or a backlash which detracts, against a balanced kind

of industry — a balanced kind of relationship. The one-year-I-get-you,

the-next-year-you-get-me concept really doesn't serve the best

interests of a trade union membership, the industry or the economy in

the long term. So I think if we can develop a more mature relationship,

based on the kind of studies that we have experienced at the Labour

College of Canada, based on, perhaps, a better understanding of labour

law as it affects the practitioners in this province, and a variety of

lectures — perhaps from some of the very, very eminent people in the

field of industrial relations — this can be a direct benefit.

The leader of the Liberal Party talked about the probable

need for amendment of the bill. I have one amendment that I do

intend to bring in, but I think it would be regrettable if we

got into a debate on the semantics of the title or what is

meant by it. It is called the labour education bill and it is

primarily directed at the trade union movement, because in

sheer terms of volume the most people who must be reached are

in that realm. I don't want to indicate that this should be

just for the staff representatives or the full-time agents.

It's becoming more and more crucial in industrial relations

that the rank-and-file membership be better educated in terms

of analyzing and understanding contract recommendations that

are made to them.

One of the most severe problems in industrial relations

today is the growing tendency for the membership to reject

contract packages without any real deep analysis, based rather

on a variety of other considerations which are sometimes almost

frivolous. I think that's an alarming thing.

Now, the greatest volume will be workers, undoubtedly. There

will be staff representatives and rank-and-file people, but the

bill makes it quite clear that it will involve all those

participating in industrial relations. I have identified

certain sections of management that will be particularly looked

at — local elective boards, new businesses. But there is very

little need in terms of a company like MacMillan Bloedel where

they have access to, in fact have developed over the years, a

quite sophisticated system of collective bargaining with expert

negotiators at their disposal. Rather, this institution, it is

hoped, will shore up that whole area of small business

enterprises, newly certified units, rank-and-file workers,

where there is a great need for improved knowledge and improved

skills. I would not hope to see a debate over the semantics of

the title of the bill. The intent is clear; I have espoused it

very, very often. It is enabling legislation, generally, and

that should be recognized and understood.

[ Page 2788 ]

I hope that the board that is established — which, indeed,

will be representative of management, of labour, of the

Department of Education and the Department of Labour — will in

fact have a lot of flexibility in establishing their own

approaches. I think it would be quite improper and, perhaps,

not even very acceptable if this Legislature sought to impose

some blueprint on the people who can best identify their own

needs in terms of what is required. So, by and large, this is

enabling legislation. I think we should place our faith in the

ability of the parties to identify their own needs and let it

evolve and grow according to those needs, rather than trying to

impose something on them arbitrarily through this

Legislature.

Regarding duplication of training, it was pointed out that

some unions do have training courses. That's true. I don't know

of any, though, that are very comprehensive — most of them are

quite sporadic. But that really doesn't answer the question. If

a union is, indeed, content with its own processes, it has a

choice to remain with that or to participate in the centre.

One of the problems with the Labour College of Canada was

the simple fact that it didn't provide for the kind of volume

of people from the Province of British Columbia that we need to

expose to that kind of service. I attended the college in 1967,

and that year there were nine people from British Columbia. I

suggest that we have quite a dramatic need to expose a vastly

higher number of people to the course curriculum than was

possible through the Labour College of Canada.

I think I've dealt with most of the points the leader of the

Conservative Party made. I do want to assure him that in terms

of political neutrality on the board I view this as a purely

educational exercise and not one of compounding any divisions

or any biases that exist between labour and management.

Certainly the opposite is the goal and the motivation. It's to

break down those differences, to break down those prejudices

and those, you know, built-in biases that create problems at

the bargaining table.

MR. WALLACE: You don't want an MLA on the board.

HON. MR. KING: Certainly not, no MLA. There are some very

well-qualified people in the House, but I think they're well

involved in other pursuits, and I think they should remain that

way.

Division of labour and management groups: I covered

that.

Training opportunity for the public: well, that's something that may

be considered eventually, but I think the main thrust has to go to

those involved in the process. Now there are areas in some of our

existing institutions which provide courses in industrial relations.

It's not quite geared to the kind of bargaining system that we hope

this will be geared to and tailored to meet. But that's a secondary

consideration and one that might well develop in the future.

I want to agree completely with the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — is that the right

constituency? — when he talks about the fear of.... I have

trouble keeping track of you; I wasn't sure whether you'd

changed your constituency or not. I agree with his concern

about superimposing another structure of bureaucracy and

facilities on what we have in the educational field now. It's

my hope and intent that the board will utilize existing

regional colleges, even high schools, to mount these courses

around the province.

The labour education centre? It may become a reality in

terms of some kind of structure from which these courses flow.

But I would resist some tightly structured course centred in

one location which would mean that all the people from the

province would have to come to that centralized location. I

think it would be wasteful, and I think it would indeed be

duplication. That is not the intent. I think I mentioned that

in my opening remarks and perhaps the Member missed it.

The question of women on the board: well, there will be

trade union people assigned to the board; there will be

management people. I customarily ask the central labour groups

and the central management groups to refer to me suggested

names from which I may consider appointments to such panels and

positions as this. It's my hope that both those parties will be

sensitive to the point made by the Second Member for Vancouver

South (Mrs. Webster).

There is a need for more women in the workforce. There is a

need for more women in important positions and, quite frankly,

I think industry and labour are starting to learn that the

benefits that flow from that are certainly not just some

self-gratification in the face of International Women's Year,

but that there are hard and real benefits that flow from more

women in the workforce. Certainly, we found, where there was

an extremely high turnover of the workforce and women were

introduced in large content, that there was a stabilizing

factor and certainly a better social milieu. And that's

important.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now I think there's one further point,

the curriculum: I

think the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made

the point that he would like to see a certain kind of course

content. I agree with him. But basically the course content

will be left up to the board. I hope that they're able to

obtain the services of someone who's very outstanding and

capable in terms of the more or

[ Page 2789 ]

less academic field of industrial relations. I hope that

they don't confine their search to too-narrow grounds in terms

of obtaining someone of that stature.

So I think we're on track in terms of what the intent of the

bill is, what the enabling aspects of it are and the various

points of view that the opposition Members have put forth this

afternoon. I think that it's something that's welcomed by all

sections of the community, as well as this House.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 85, Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill 88, Mr.

Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, we have lived almost a year now with the Trade

Practices Act, and we have found that it has been very

successful. Ontario brought in a very similar Act, which became

effective May 1.

Alberta introduced a bill last year. However, it did not

contain a provision in it for the assurance of voluntary

compliance, which we have in our legislation. As a result, the

business community requested this addition to the legislation.

When it is reintroduced in Alberta, the bill will contain that

particular alternative, which has been very successful in this

province.

To give some idea what the reaction has been, we find that

the business community, for the most part, has discovered that

the legislation does not apply to them, for the simple reason

that they never did any of the things this legislation outlaws.

It is only those few fast-buck artists, the ones who have been

immoral, dishonest or unethical in the past, who have been

caught by this legislation.

We have even had a case recently in which one business used

it against another business. Radio NW Ltd. took an action

against Belkraft Industries, alleging that Belkraft was

claiming association with NW in the promotion of NW's bridal

fair, when in fact Belkraft was not affiliated at all. As a

result of taking this action, Radio NW was able to obtain an

injunction prohibiting Belkraft from alleging to be associated

with the bridal fair promotion of Radio NW. This is one area

where the legislation has helped one business against another

business which may have been unethical.

Working with the legislation over the year has been a very

gratifying experience, Most of the amendments that have been drafted in

this legislation have been suggested by consumers, by members of the

business community, by law bodies such as law professors, and courts

have made suggestions. Some of our own department staff have felt that

there was a need for clarification of language, a smoothing-out of

language. This is what this bill attempts to do.

There are a few changes which are of interest, aside from

the mostly-language clarifications. One of these is the change

wherein the media will now be responsible to some degree for

the advertising they carry. They will have obligation to

ascertain whether it is misleading and/or deceptive. Heretofore

they were exempt from the legislation as long as they could

show that they acted in good faith.

As pointed out by Mr. Ian McLeod, who did the study for our

department, which has been released since, the analysis showed

that frequently good faith was actually blind faith. The media

made little or no attempt to vet their advertising before

accepting it. He found that, on the whole, the electronic media

were more responsible and more aware of federal and provincial

legislation dealing with false and misleading advertising than

were the print media, because the electronic media have

something to lose. They have a licence to broadcast to lose, so

they are substantially more responsible in this regard.

The print media, on the other hand, sometimes gave the

decision-making power of whether or not an ad would be accepted

to a very minor clerk in the organization. Inasmuch as the

media must have some obligation to the community as far as

libel goes, as far as good taste goes, we feel that they should

assume some liability as far as deceptive and misleading

advertising is concerned. We plan to work out guidelines for

the media industry in this regard so that they have some idea

of what they can be expected to look out for.

Another important feature that we're amending is that

businesses will be given the right to plead circumstances

beyond their control in any prosecution brought under the Trade

Practices Act if they show that they took all reasonable

precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid an offence

under the Act. This makes it much simpler because, in the past,

the way the Act is written now, they could be criminally

liable, and that was not the intent of the legislation.

Quite obviously, where the supplier was not aware that the

product was mislabeled or that it did not have the benefits

claimed for it and he purchased the product in all good faith,

he should not be criminally liable. Perhaps he should be

civilly liable — that's for a court to ascertain — but not

criminally liable.

I feel that we can speak better to this bill in committee

stage because it is so detailed. The changes in language are

very minute; however, they do have

[ Page 2790 ]

significance. It can best be dealt with in committee

stage.

I now move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDON (North Okanagan): Essentially we agree with

the Minister. I think it is a bit of a bomb dressed up in a

dress. There is a fair amount of impact in this bill, but it

and the Minister's statements deal more in terms of different

sections of the bill rather than principle. Therefore we would

prefer to debate the bill in committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We welcome this bill, in particular some

of the changes outlined by the Minister with respect to

printing of misleading advertising. We think she spoke rather

eloquently and well. There's no question that the problem she

described exists. We hope that proper enforcement of

section 2

against newspapers who in a thoroughly irresponsible manner

accept advertisements from the government on things like the

budget, without any question as to whether it's true or not,

could do a great deal to bring a little more truth in

advertising. The government won't be able to continue to put

misleading ads forward.

The test of advertising, of course, will become that

important functionary that the Minister referred to, not some

lowly clerk, as she described the person who it might be. This

person will be responsible for keeping the government honest.

We think if all newspapers in the province have a well-paid,

highly positioned person to keep the government honest, under

section 2, progress will come in the Province of British Columbia on

the question of advertising.

A second general point I'd like to raise is that of

misleading advertising, which I referred to the Minister before,

and she agreed with me. Unfortunately, the federal Department

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs accepted what I think is

highly misleading advertising. I've got this example here of

the Safeway ad, as you can see. The grade B and utility,

according to the law, should be the same size. Yet you see what

they did: the "B" is there is great big bold letters, and

"utility" is spelled vertically in itty-bitty little letters.

Yet apparently that meets the federal Act even though, as I was

informed by a law student at University of British Columbia who

brought this first to my attention, in The British Columbia

Gazette , April 2, 1964,

section 802, it says: "In any

advertisement pertaining to dressed or eviscerated poultry,

wherein the price of such poultry appears, the grade name shall

be stated in letters of at least equal size and prominence to

the price." Now I wonder if the Minister would agree?

Back to my example here of The Vancouver Sun of Thursday,

March 21, 1974. "Utility," written vertically that way, is stated in

letters of at least equal size and prominence to the price. I think

she'd agree with me — she's shaking her head side to side — it is not.

And yet, according to Canada Safeway, their advertising manager, Mr.

Madden, has had this checked out. He sent me a very civil letter

pointing out that this is correct in accordance with the directive of

Mr. S. Arnold of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I think that's wrong; I think the B.C. regulations are right

in this respect. The word "utility" should be spelled out big

and bold, just as big as the 69 cents. I trust this type of

thing will be affected by this new Act, because I'm sure the

Minister would also like to have the utility grade spelled out

in big bold letters.

The other funny thing in that ad, if I could just let you

have a look at it again for a moment, is that apparently, where

poultry is cut up in portions, you don't have to put the grade

at all. That sounds very strange indeed. If you have a 5 lb.

bag of portions to serve deep-fried, you don't have to put down

the grade, which seems a very curious

interpretation of

regulation 8.02 of The British Columbia Gazette , April

2, 1964.

In Mr. Madden's letter again — just to quote him, so I can

assure you that Safeway has not broken a law in this

advertising — he tells me: "As to the second question why the

cut-up fryers in the 5 lb. bag at 69 cents a pound included no

mention of grade, again the ruling by Mr. Levy's department

that the minute a poultry item, be it turkeys, fryers, roasting

chicken or fowl, is segmented it no longer can carry a

grade."

That's undoubtedly dead true because Mr. Madden, as I said,

has checked this thing out carefully. But it certainly seems

wrong that as soon as you slice the thing up there's no more

question of grade of the meat. We've had very alarming stories

in the press about the quality of meat that has been consumed

in Canada over the last few years. There was a reference,

indeed, to Expo.

HON. MS. YOUNG: What was the date of that ad?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The date of the advertisement? The

Minister has called across the floor a perfectly sensible

request, namely the date of the ad. It's The Vancouver

Sun of Thursday, March 21, 1974. Mr. G.C. Lane of 602-4676

Yew Street in Vancouver brought it to my attention, which I

appreciate. We checked it out, and it turned out to be perfectly

legal, but it's advertising which I think should be looked at

and changes made so that the intent and spirit as well as the

letter of the law are adhered to. That letter of the law is:

"In any advertisement pertaining to dressed or eviscerated

poultry wherein the price of such poultry appears, the grade

name shall be stated in letters at least equal size and

prominence to the price."

That's a question I raised with the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) last year. But the

[ Page 2791 ]

Minister of Consumer Services, now that she's well-versed in her

department, will undoubtedly like to take up the question.

One other quick point before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman. I

wonder whether the Minister could say a word about refunds

under this particular Act — perhaps she can't, but I think she

could. There are certain businesses which refuse to give

refunds under a certain amount, even though they owe you the

money. I wonder whether the Minister could put my mind at rest,

and the minds of some constituents of mine, as to what's legal

in the refund business.

If, for example, I go into a store and return an item, which

was perhaps incorrectly packaged or something, or something I

didn't actually think I was buying, or if I return an item

which is defective and say: "No, I want my refund." They say:

"Sorry, Mr. Anderson, anything under $1 we can't refund," or, "Anything under $5 we can't refund." Are they

entitled to do that? The Minister has her excellent adviser

behind her; perhaps a quick word or two on that would be

possible when she closes debate on this particular bill which

is called the Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975. Certainly,

if it isn't included in the Act, it should be. That's a trade

practice which can hurt the consumer — namely, making an

arbitrary figure that no refund will be given if the amount is

below that certain level. Be it $1, $5, $10, be it 25 cents, if

you are owed the money, you should get it back.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister's comment

that we can do more to this bill in committee is very valid,

because I would have to differ with her that the changes are

minor. There is some real significance in some of the

paragraphs that are amended. For example, I notice that instead

of referring a certain matter to the court, she has inserted

the word "a justice." I would like a lot of explanation as to

what that means, because a justice isn't defined in the

definition

section at the start of the bill,

whereas "court"

is. Examples of this nature...we won't go into this until

committee.

I certainly think it is a good idea to attempt to have

advertising agents be responsible for what they put in the

newspaper. I wonder if the Minister could give a little

information to the House as to what the guidelines will be. I

understand that The Vancouver

Sun already has a

system of guidelines. Newspapers never being backward at coming

forward, it stated in a recent

article that the Minister has

been made aware of the guidelines presently practised by The Vancouver

Sun . So that we can all get the

absolute truth of the matter, I wonder if the Minister is, in

fact, drawing up guidelines based on the practice based on The Vancouver

Sun , or perhaps she is in a

position to make these regulations even better.

But on this whole matter of consumer affairs and advertising and

deception in the marketplace, I would just like to sound the note of

caution I sounded when this bill was first introduced last year. It is

that we can, as legislators, run the risk of trying to go too far to

protect the individual consumer against just about every eventuality in

the marketplace.

It is reassuring that the Minister pointed out that the

early experience with this bill has been not to effect in any

appreciable way the honest businessman but the small minority

of people who are given to unethical practices. Nevertheless, I

just think, as we see more and more amendments coming in under

this Minister and more and more intervention in the

marketplace, that there seems to be a real danger of two

things: that this department can become a huge bureaucracy at

great expense to the taxpayer.

I would like to know, as we go from year to year with

experience with this bill and with the Department of Consumer

Services, what the kind of cost per item of service by the

department turns out to be. I made some very tentative

inquiries of the Better Business Bureau some months ago, and

certainly their cost — of providing advice and intervention

seemed to me to be very economical per item of service.

As we make more and more amendments and lay down more and

more guidelines, for example in this bill, as to what

newspapers may or may not do, I assume that this inevitably

means more and more supervision by this department and more and

more intervention in a variety of ways. Perhaps this is the

afternoon for caution. I was cautioning the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) about his education centre becoming a big

bureaucracy. But I don't think I am being paranoid on this

point. I think one of the concerns of every taxpayer in Canada,

certainly in relation to the federal government, is an absolute

horror at the way the size of government continues to expand.

What the taxpayer wonders is whether in the long run the

cost-benefit analysis ends up in the favour of the

taxpayer.

I can see that the Minister feels that newspapers should

have some responsibility for their ads. But, again, I want to

know what basically the guidelines will be and what it will

cost in terms of money to the newspaper advertiser to carry out

this investigation, because more cost means a higher price to

the consumer. Newspapers can't just take it out of some source

of government funding such as can be done by the Labour

Education Centre.

So I think we shouldn't be too blasé or too motherhoodish

about this whole idea that anything that helps the consumer is

worth doing. It is worth doing only if in terms of economics we

are not creating another great big department of government

with more people pushing paper at a cost which means that the

protection to that individual consumer is disproportionate to

the benefits for the

[ Page 2792 ]

whole of society.

Another point I wish to make quickly on this bill, along the

same line of more and more government intervention, relates to

another

section which gives the director additional power to

appoint a receiver when an investigation has been ordered.

Where notice is given, the receiver can be given power to wind

up the affairs or.... The Minister is shaking her head.

I am referring to

section 13(a), and perhaps we can leave this

to committee. But the section, as I read it, is that the

receiver appointee part of the principle of this bill is that

you can appoint a receiver and that receiver can go to court

and get authority to wind up the affairs of the person who is

being investigated. Then again, there may be some justification

for this. But it is just one more very substantial extension of

power to another arm of government.

There is just so much happening in our society today at all

levels, federal, provincial and municipal, where more and more

power of intervention into the life of the individual is being

given to governments, arms of government, Crown corporations,

board appointees, et cetera. I suppose it perhaps sounds like

being against a good motherhood issue for me to suggest that

maybe we should put the brakes on the intensity with which the

affairs of the consumer are being looked after by governments.

Nobody would deny that a few years ago matters were very much

against the interests of the consumer in many areas, and the

producer and the retailer frequently took unfair advantage.

All I am saying is: let not the pendulum swing so far in the

other direction that we have so many bureaucrats all running

around looking after the individual's interest, when in many

cases the individual should be left in the responsible position

of doing it for himself. This, I realize, is something a little

more philosophical than the specifics in this bill. But I do

feel that many people in our society today are becoming very

concerned in a wide variety of fields at the way the government

is taking on responsibilities for the individual which the

individual might well handle for himself.

If we are not careful we will finish up somewhere down the

road with governments feeling that they have just about every

single responsibility for an individual the minute he steps

into the marketplace. If it went that far I would think it

would be a very unfortunate conclusion, even although your

initial motivations as government were well intended.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we should leave it at that and discuss

some of the specifics in committee.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly, while many of the

amendments contained in this bill are obviously designed to

make existing legislation more workable, I must express my

opposition to the question of advertising —

section 2 of the

bill.

The Minister will know, Mr. Speaker, that she may have some

power to control what happens with regard to the publication of

advertisements within the province, but there are people who,

by reason of their occupation, are obligated to distribute

advertising material which comes from outside the province, the

printing of which this Minister cannot in any way control. Yet

they find themselves in breach of the legislation as it

presently stands. I'm thinking particularly of that part of

section 2 which deals with the distribution of advertising

material.

The newsstand operator who receives periodicals from outside

the province which are transmitted in the ordinary course of

commerce leaves himself open for what may be a deceptive or

misleading ad appearing in that periodical. He may never even

read it himself or ever have the opportunity of determining

whether or not the publication of that advertisement amounts to

a contravention of the Act.

We had this situation, Mr. Speaker, back in 1971, when the

government tried, with marked lack of success, to restrain the

advertising of tobacco products. The consequences of that

legislation are clear to all those who were present during the

debates on legislation and saw what subsequently happened to

it.

The Minister is creating a very difficult situation for many

people. who are completely powerless to comply with

legislation. I think she should consider whether or not some

appropriate amendment should be made to the proposed new

section 1(

a) before it comes to committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Minister closing the

debate.

HON. MS. YOUNG: In answer to the various questions, the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) asked about laws

regarding refunds. The general law is that there is no law, as

I am advised. The amount or whether they would be given credit

instead of a refund is at the discretion of the supplier unless

the consumer can show loss or damages due to a deceptive

practice. Then he would have an action under the Act.

He asked about The Vancouver Sun guidelines, that we

would be using them as the basis of our suggested guidelines.

No, they are not good enough. I regret to suggest this to

The Vancouver Sun , but Mr. McLeod, who is the gentleman

who has been in the advertising field for many, many years with

a very reputable company, Woodward's, found some very good

guidelines from the State of Florida. We will be suggesting

these, but we will also be talking to the media and asking for

their input and suggestions.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked about the cost of

providing our service to the consumer. He said that the Better

Business Bureau

[ Page 2793 ]

had a very low rate on an annual basis. Our figures indicate

it costs about 90 cents per year per consumer in this province.

I would also suggest that the Better Business Bureau refers a

great many of their problems to our department for

resolution.

I would also point out that our department includes the

debtors' assistance division, so that in that 90 cents comes

the cost of providing this service. The debtors' assistance

division will be regaining or putting back into the business

community of this province $1 million this year that might

otherwise not have gone back there. They might have gone into

personal bankruptcy; they might have gone to other provinces

and just left bad debts.

Our division will see that that much money will be going

back into business in this province. In the first four months

of the year, consumers received refunds, rebates and

settlements in the amount of over $100,000. That rate is

keeping up.

As far as winding up companies, the courts will be the ones

to decide on whether the trustee has the right to wind that up.

That is a decision the court will make.

We always emphasize consumers. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) was concerned about whether we were overpampering the

consumer. I suggest to him that we are not. Quite the contrary:

we insist in all cases that the consumer approach the supplier

first before he approaches the department. When they approach

the department after they feel they haven't received

satisfaction, we look at the case. We have a reputation among

those in the business community of being extremely even-handed.

We look at it and when, in our view, the consumer is really out

of step, really asking for the moon — and we have many cases

like that — we tell them so. We contact the supplier, get the

other side of the story and make a judgment. If we feel that

the consumer does not have a case, we so advise the consumer. I

can show you countless letters where we have made that judgment

and said: "In our opinion, you don't have a case. However, you

have the legislation. If you want to proceed against the

supplier, go ahead." It is then up to the consumer.

As far as the advertisers go, the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was concerned about

the vendors of, say, magazines and all that. Would they be

liable? In my judgment, they would not because they can prove

that they took these things in good faith under the legislation

and they didn't have to check it all out. Possibly they

couldn't check it all out. This is true for the advertisers

also, that they can demonstrate that the advertising was given

to them in a clear...and that they did not know and had no

reason to suspect that its publication would amount to a

contravention of the Act.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 88, Trade Practices Amendment Act, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 91.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the

Hospital Amendment Act, 1975, has a number of principles within

it as it is outlined. It's an amendment Act. I will briefly go

through some of the areas I think of interest. A lot of the

bill, of course, is general housekeeping, updating of a very

large statute, or at least a reasonably large statute, which

has to be updated from time to time by virtue of time.

One area of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is restricting

hospitals to some degree in exercising borrowing power. Really,

what we are doing here is making into statute what has been a

fact for some time. That would be that they may not exercise

borrowing power without expressed approval from the Health

Ministry.

Also in the Act we more clearly define personal care. As

time goes on and other levels of care are defined, it is

important that it also be defined in law.

There is another area on the whole question of transfer of

ownership of private facilities or, for that matter, of

transferring indebtedness. We think it important that these

transfers not be made unless they are also clearly

approved.

A further amendment is identifying the duties of the

superintendent of a private facility and at the same time

extending the probationary period. As you know, in the past the

probationary period for a superintendent was three months. We

felt that this was inadequate, so it has now been extended to

six months.

Another area in the bill is the fact that confirmation of

death by a medical practitioner must in fact be confirmed. It

has been brought to our attention that in certainly one case,

and maybe more, death had not been confirmed by a practitioner

when an undertaker had been sought. We find that this must be

something that cannot happen.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, is establishing rules regarding the debts

of private hospitals. As you know, at the present time private

hospitals run by entrepreneurs oftentimes raise money by raising a

mortgage on their private hospital so that they can invest that money

elsewhere in another business, in a newspaper or some other kind of

enterprise. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that the

mortgage then on the hospital becomes a very large

[ Page 2794 ]

factor in

determining the per diem costs to the patient within the hospital. We

feel that under those circumstances, it is only right that these kind

of changes...which were in the old Act to a certain extent but now we

must make very clear that the new Act makes sure that these changes are

approved prior to them being effective. We have seen not only in our

own jurisdiction but in a number of other jurisdictions where the per

diem rates are forced up generally by an attitude of, well, let's

borrow on the premises and use the money for something else. And we

just don't go along with that.

The former government, Mr. Speaker, had a policy around

ownership of private facilities, and that policy was that

monopolies should not, would not — and, unfortunately, — they

didn't carry it quite as far as "could not" — take over a

number of private hospitals. You all remember the National

System — Neil Cook and Associates, who incidentally control

Sandringham. Don't let anybody fool anybody about that, despite

Mr. Shepherd and other people who actually are in the

forefront. While the old government in their policy did not

like what was happening, and asked that it not happen, they

didn't require that it not happen. So under this amendment we

are requiring that this in fact not happen under law. It's

important, if you can imagine what one group, taking over the

private hospital system within this province, could do to the

whole system by establishing that kind of monopoly. So

therefore this, in fact, is clearly outlined in the new

Act.

We also have put some teeth in the appeal board aspects.

Recall in 1971 that an appeal board was set up. If a doctor was

denied privileges in a hospital, he could appeal to that

particular board and request that his privileges be reinstated

in a particular hospital. The legislation was put forward and,

unfortunately, lacked teeth in that the decision of the appeal

board, while it could be made quite strong and clear, wasn't

necessarily transferable. In other words, the decision of an

appeal board could not be necessarily substituted for the

decision that the hospital board had made originally. So

therefore the appeal board could find that the doctor should be

reinstated. So this, I believe, is corrected in this Act. Also

at the same time we're providing some protection for that

appeal board in order that they not bear the brunt of damage

suits and so on, as you would normally do in cases like

this.

Mr. Speaker, we've had some recent experience with public

administration of a hospital in Fernie, and it's been a test of

that particular

section of the Act of a public trustee being

put into a general hospital. We have found some areas of the

Act that need more clear definition, which we've provided in

this amendment. We've also found that there should be a

transition time back to the board situation.

In other words, to go from the administrator directly back to a

board of trustees we find a little bit unworkable. We feel that we

should build in a transition period so that it allows the hospital

society to be able to pick up the pieces, so to speak, in a much more

co-ordinated way. Then the new board can work with the public trustees

for a period of time so that they can put it all together and carry it

on. You can imagine what would happen if, for instance, a brand-new

board of trustees took over a hospital just like that, bang, at the

snap of the fingers, with very little experience. It might be quite a

devastating experience for them. On the other hand, however, if you

allow for this transitional period, then it allows everybody to work

everything out harmoniously. I feel this is definitely required.

With that, I'll turn Bill 91 over to the opposition to hear

what they have to say about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't you going to move second reading?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it as moved, second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just working backwards,

starting with the way the Minister ended and going back to the

beginning, I agree, certainly, with the need for this

transitional period with a new board of trustees. I wonder if

the

section isn't just a little harsh. Perhaps we should deal

with this more completely in committee — I don't know — in

saying that a board of trustees is automatically finished when

a public administrator is appointed. Perhaps there shouldn't be

a period of suspension in there in case the problems aren't as

serious as might have been suspected, and that board of

trustees could carry on at a later time. Perhaps the Minister

agrees that that could happen; I don't know.

I'm a little confused about a couple of the

definitions that the

Minister gave in relation to the changes in this bill. The Minister

said that the medical appeal board didn't have any right, really, to

make its decisions binding, but the old Act certainly allowed them to

make final and binding decisions. The only change that I can see in

here is that it also extends those decisions to a doctor who has been

refused, on an initial case, a permit to practise in a hospital. The

rules were always there for a doctor who. was refused a permit on a

reapplication and in other areas, but this amendment to this bill

extends that a little further and allows the medical appeal board to

affirm and vary and reverse and substitute its own decision if an

initial application is refused. Other than cleaning up the language

quite a lot — the language is much better in the amendment than it was

before — I don't see very much difference except for that significant

change. It's a change the opposition would certainly agree with.

[ Page 2795 ]

The other point that I was a little confused about was the

change with respect to suits brought against the medical appeal

board. Once again, I think that protection was always in the

Act, but the new amendment now seems to extend that protection

from suits to the board of management rather than the medical

appeal board. The hospital trustees are now protected from the

kind of suits in respect to evidence they might give in any

kind of a case. I think there's a little confusion there, but

the medical appeal board always had that protection under the

old Act as well. It's an extension again into the board of

management of the hospital.

I'd just like to say that I like many of the parts of this

bill. It's some of the things that I've talked about with

regard to private hospitals — the licensing of private

hospitals and the need to get into further concern about the

financing of private hospitals. It seems to be tightened up

considerably in this bill. The opposition, I think, would have

to applaud that move. I know that probably the Minister and

myself could get into some kind of a philosophical debate about

entrepreneurs in the business and everything else, but I think

the Minister also has to recognize that it's not only the

abuses of entrepreneurs that we have to worry about here and

not only private hospitals but also hospitals which are

publicly owned through various kinds of societies.

Those hospitals quite often in the past have found

themselves in very serious difficulty because of the kind of

mortgaging arrangements they've made. Not only do the per diem

rates in many instances, as the Minister indicated, get forced

up but, rather, services in the hospital get forced down.

Perhaps that's even worse because then the patients who are

confined to those institutions are going to suffer far more

than they might just from a financial point of view. If the

services get forced down, then patients really suffer from a

medical point of view. I think that's a far more important

danger than the per diem rates getting out of hand.

I think that the maintenance of tighter control over

financial matters of private hospitals, society-owned

hospitals, particularly this business of transferring not only

the ownership, as was, under the old Act, but now transferring

mortgages or deeds or leases or any use of property associated

with the hospital, is a very important consideration to be made,

in my opinion.

I know that we've found on a couple of occasions in my own

constituency where hospitals have been transferred to new owners or

mortgages have been transferred to someone else and there wasn't enough

inspection done into the kind of business practice that was going on.

People were getting into a rest home, for instance, for $1,000 down and

making mortgage payments that they couldn't possibly make, so they had

to cut down the services again. That's the thing that concerns me most.

It's not the per diem rate, although that's important, but the cutback

in services that we have to be most concerned about.

I think that defining more strictly the powers of the

medical appeal board will make the application of the Act much

easier.

Mr. Speaker, basically with those comments, the opposition

supports the amendments to the medical Act, and will support it

in second reading.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly we can have any

discussion the Member likes in committee stage, and I am

delighted that the opposition has taken this position. You are

quite right about the medical appeal: both the board and the

medical staff are not protected. So, Mr. Speaker, with that I

would move second reading of Bill 91.

Motion approved.

Bill 91, Hospital Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[ Page 2796 ]

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill

complete without amendment and further reports that a division

took place in committee and requests that this division be

recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Bill 28, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY : Committee on Bill 29, Mr.

Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how

much money this will save small business.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I will take note of your question.

MR. GIBSON: Is the idea, then, Mr. Chairman, that we will

revert to this

section when somebody comes up?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'll give you the answer before we are

through with the bill. We can revert to this

section if you

wish.

The question is: How much will it save?

MR. GIBSON: The question is how much it will cost the Crown,

in effect. How much tax revenue are we losing by this as

compared to how much we would lose if the old limit were

kept?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Actually, do you want the

section to pass

without the information? I'll get you the information. Will you

allow it to pass without the information?

MR. GIBSON: It is agreeable to me, Mr. Chairman. I am just

seeking it for information purposes, but I do hope we get there

before we pass this bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I hope so. I've just sent for Mr.

Ferguson in the Finance department.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: The question I have with respect to sections 2

and 3 is identical, Mr. Chairman. If again the Minister of

Finance is taking notes, I would like to know how much

additional money this is going to raise. These would seem to me

quite important aspects of a bill of this kind. I just thought

I would ask.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, when I get my

information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As soon as Mr. Ferguson appears, Mr.

Member. I will be able to relate it to another bill.

[ Page 2797 ]

MR, GIBSON: Perhaps we might hold this one back from third

reading, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly, whatever you wish. We'll let

the committee rest for a moment until Mr. Ferguson arrives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Agreed. Everybody at ease.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he got roller skates?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come on, Fergie.

MR. GIBSON: What if Mr. Ferguson doesn't know the

answer?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If Mr. Ferguson doesn't know the answers,

we'll shoot him and find another bureaucrat. That's one way of

trimming the staff.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He may not be here.

MR. GIBSON: He's sure not here right now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're coasting right now. If you want to

adjourn this third reading....

Oh, yes, Mr. Member, what we can do is complete third

reading but ask for a report on another day. I will get the

answers before the report.

MR. GIBSON: Just on that point of order, there is a chance

for a good debate at that time if it seems necessary based on

the answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a report? "When shall the bill be read

a third time?" I don't think there is. Limited debate on third

reading. I will give you the answers at that time.

MR. GIBSON: Of course, as one of the Hon. Members points

out, we might want to amend it at that time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you want to amend the bill, I

think you have to amend the government.

MR. GIBSON: Now you've got it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And with three out of five, you are

diminishing your ratio in terms of the opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: An alternative, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, might

be to rise and report progress. Then we could go over this

again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there's not much progress.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no, there hasn't been.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want a false motion.

MR. GIBSON: It seems to me a reasonable question to ask in

the House as to how much revenue a tax bill is going to raise

and how much....

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you are agreed, Mr. Member, I will get

you the information as soon as I can. That's my understanding.

I can report on report.

MR. GIBSON: I would just as soon we reported progress and

then if we came back to committee....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly. You go ahead and make the

motion.

MR. GIBSON: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise

and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave

to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX

(1958) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2798 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Gasoline Tax

(1958) Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

YEAS — 31

Levi

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Richter

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

GASOLINE TAX

(1948) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask this question on the

bill we just voted on because I understand it is not

operational, but on this bill this would raise the gasoline tax

by 2 cents a gallon. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Finance

how much revenue that will raise for the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: About $18 million.

MR. GIBSON: That's about what I figured.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Approximately.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 31, Gasoline Tax

(1948) Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 32.

MOTIVE-FUEL USE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Same question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not as much.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, but how much?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

MR. GIBSON: Hold on, Mr. Chairman. I honestly would like to

know how much this

section will raise if it is carried into

law.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier doesn't know — no one has figured it

out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The note I have is "self-explanatory."

(Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: But could you explanatory yourself one?

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Before it self-destructs, where's Jerry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's coming right in. How many dollars do

we get on the...? Approximately $5 million.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 2799 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise, forthwith, and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 32, Motive-Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

COLOURED GASOLINE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 33; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the same question: sections 1 and

2 — the amount of revenue to be raised.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, without as much accuracy as

the two previous answers, approximately $1 million.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 33, Coloured Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 73.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL

AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the amount set aside in the

estimates for this kind of a grant is $25 million. I would just

appreciate confirmation from the Premier that that is his best

estimate of what this

section will cost.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, that is the best estimate.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: 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 73, School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to

call Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I take that to mean with debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: With debate.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

(continued)

Vote 64: Minister's office, $96,345 — approved.

On vote 65: office of consultant to the Minister,

$61,455.

MR. SMITH: Just a short question to the Minister on this.

This is a new vote of $61,000 for office of consultant to the

Minister. Would the Minister of Health inform the committee as

to the personnel of this office and what their functions and

their responsibilities are?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, at the time the estimates were

put together we had to set up a separate estimate as we were in

the middle of

[ Page 2800 ]

reorganizing at the time. We had to set up a separate

estimate for my new Deputy who is now, incidentally, the

Deputy. But because of the fact that he was not so entitled at

that time, we set it up as a consultant and provided the

financing in that way. This is the explanation.

MR. SMITH: You don't need it now.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I need it for the Deputy, but it is just

transferred to the Deputy's vote. In other words, this is the

senior Deputy of the Department of Health, in the name of Jim

Mainguy.

MRS. JORDAN: Further clarification on this point. I assume

from your explanation that the staff to go with this vote is in

another vote.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. His secretary is there. Actually he has

very little staff, but his backup staff is in both hospital

programmes and health services.

Vote 65 approved.

On vote 66: health advisory council, $140,000.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if the Minister could tell us just

where his planning is at in regard to the health advisory

council. As I recall, this was one of the recommendations of

the B.C. Medical Association that there should be some liaison

body composed of people in the health field so that there was

some feeling of easy access or method of making recommendations

to the Minister regarding a wide variety of health problems and

ideas coming from the various personnel in the health field.

Has it been set up, and could the Minister just tell us where

it's at?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), what we've done so far is written to a

number of groups in the province — the medical association, the

College of Dental Surgeons, the RNABC, even SPARC and groups

like that which are either closely related or very interested

in health care.

As you know, the health advisory council's suggested task

will be long-range, thoughtful planning in health care. So, so

far, what we've done is ask for nominees, and to date we've had

a few. Hopefully, we'll be able to structure it within the next

few months and get it off and running. It was as the Member for

Oak Bay suggested, a suggestion of the medical association,

SPARC and many other groups over the last few years. Hopefully,

it will be put together shortly.

MRS. JORDAN: Could the Minister advise whether this health

advisory council will be working with the health security projects,

which I understand are under Dr. Foulkes, and will Dr. Foulkes have

anything to do with this council?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, nothing to do with it at all.

Vote 66 approved.

On vote 67: accounting division, $840,714.

MRS. JORDAN: I resist the temptation to say — and you know I

would never say it — this looks like nothing but a bureaucratic

increase and appears to be doing nothing to provide beds for

health for people in this province. I wonder if the Minister

would confirm that there is a $300,000 increase in the

accounting division, and how this is going to help in the

health care for the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm carrying the load here. The accounting

division, of course, is a division for the Provincial

Secretary, Human Resources and the Department of Health. Yes,

there's an increase. There was a real need for an increase in

this particular vote, as I think that Member, of all Members,

knows. This is Harold Price's office, Madam Member. You know

that office has been understaffed, and naturally, with the

increasing responsibilities that that office has, he had to

have an increased staff.

MRS. JORDAN: As a matter of clarification, could the

Minister advise us whether this department has received a memo

advising it to engage in a 10 per cent cutback?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes.

Vote 67 approved.

Vote 68: general services, $2,595,094 — approved.

On vote 69: home dialysis service, $804,218.

MR. WALLACE: I wouldn't want to pass this vote without

paying tribute to all the people who are involved in this

province, in government and outside of government, in making

the home dialysis programme available. This is the programme

for individuals who, unfortunately, are suffering from kidney

failure. In some cases, instead of the individual having to go

to the hospital two days a week to be put on the kidney

machine, there are machines that can be used in the home, and

it's of immense value to the individuals concerned.

The last thing I would want is to leave the impression that

I'm complaining about the cost. I'm not complaining about that

at all, but I would like to

[ Page 2801 ]

know to what extent the programme is increasing in terms of

the number of individuals who can be managed at home rather

than have to go to the kidney unit at one of the four or five

hospitals in the province.

Could the Minister tell us if he's aware of any of the real

progress that's being made toward the kidney machine that Dr.

Price in Vancouver initiated? It's a miniaturized form that is

smaller, less bulky and more convenient than the initial

machines. To what degree has government been asked to put up

more funds, or has it put up more funds for this capital

expenditure rather than the operating cost of the dialysis

service?

These may be all questions that are too specific, but this

department and this Minister has taken a very commendable role

in setting up the dialysis service, and I think this should be

recognized.

It would also be most interesting if we could know just

where the programme is headed and to what degree this

government might be able to take pride in financially

supporting the kind of further research and development of an

improved kidney machine.

HON. MR. COCKE: I think probably one of the marks of success

of the service is the real increase here that you see — from

$381,000 to $804,000. That means that a great many more people

will be treated, and are now being treated, in their homes,

using portable equipment, vastly better, when it can be

managed, than being treated in a hospital.

So, Mr. Chairman, I can't give you the precise number of

people now who are being treated in their homes as opposed to

those who are being treated in the hospitals. But it's a

proportionately increasing number in the homes. And that's what

we want to encourage. I certainly know that there are those who

can never be treated in their homes for one reason or another —

possibly psychological, or whatever.

Dr. Price's experiment with a new, lighter portable unit

certainly has been supported and is being supported by this

government, and it is being supported by a private corporation

as well, Mr. Member. Dr. Price keeps my department and myself

informed as to what stage they're at. I just received a letter

from him, I think it was within the last three or four weeks,

indicating that some experimentation with animals is n