1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Contents of ferry service report. Mr. McClelland

— 291

Arbitration of elevator constructors' strike. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 291

Investigation of Oak Bay explosion. Mr. Wallace — 291

Contracts with computer firms re Insurance Corp. Mr. Smith — 292

Price paid for Gibsons Bowladrome property. Mr. D.A. Anderson. — 292

Charge for extended care. Mr. Wallace — 292

University Endowment Land. Mr. Smith — 293

Motions. (See appendix for wording of motions)

No. 1. Mr. Gabelmann — 294

Mr. Bennett — 295

Ms. Brown — 295

Mr. Williams — 296

Mr. Rolston — 296

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 296

Mr. Lewis — 297

Mrs. Jordan — 297

Mr. Gardom — 297

Mr. Wallace — 298

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 298

Division on motion 1 — 299

No. 2. Mr. Gorst — 299

Mr. Richter — 299

Mrs. Webster — 299

Hon. Mr. Hall — 300

No. 5. Mr. McClelland — 300

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 300

Mr. Wallace — 300

Ms. Brown — 301

No. 3. Mr. Lockstead — 301

Mr. Phillips — 302

Mr. McGeer — 302

Hon. Mr. Lea — 304

Mr. Wallace — 304

Mr. Dent — 304

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 306

Point of order

Order of motions on order paper. Mr. Smith — 306

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 306

Routine proceedings

Motions

No. 4. Mr. G.H. Anderson — 307

Mrs. Webster — 307

Hon. Ms. Young — 308

Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 13). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 308

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 308

British Columbia Ombudsman Act (Bill 14). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 308

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 309

British Columbia Auditor General (Bill 15). Second

reading.

Mr. Gardom — 309

Public Scrutiny (Bill 16). Second reading Mr. Gardom — 309

Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan (Bill 17). Second

reading.

Mr. Richter — 310

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 310

Guaranteed Income Act (Bill 18). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 310

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 311

Income Tax Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Mr. Richter — 311

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 311

Motions

No. 6. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 311

Mr. Wallace — 312

Mr. Speaker — 313

Mr. Phillips — 313

No. 7. Mr. Wallace — 313

Hon. Mr. Hall — 314

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke

— 314

Mr. McClelland — 315

Mr. Wallace — 315

Mr. McGeer — 315

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 315

An Act to Amend

An Act Respecting Medical Services (Bill

10).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 315

Mr. McClelland — 316

Mr. Wallace — 317

Mr. McGeer — 317

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 318

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 318

Division on second reading — 319

Appendix

Motions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — 321

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed to the orders

of the day I would like to introduce to the House the Hon.

Speaker for Oklahoma, Mr. Speaker Bill Willis and Mrs. Willis,

who are on the floor of the House.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the pleasure to introduce the Rt. Hon. Norman Russell Wiley,

Lord Advocate of Scotland and a Member of the British House of

Commons for the Pentlands, near Edinburgh, who is sitting right

over here along with one of his deputies, Mr. Joseph Moran, and

it says here that in the last parliament Mr. Wiley was the only

Scottish QC available on either bench of the House of

Commons.

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

the unique pleasure today of introducing to this House 26 visitors from a coal-mining

district in that great country of Soviet Russia. I hope that you will give them

a real big hand.

Secondly, I have the honour to introduce a group from the

steel workers union and also representatives from the B.C.

Chamber of Mines, who are in the gallery here.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand he has taken up most of my

gallery. (Laughter.)

Oral questions.

CONTENTS OF

FERRY SERVICE REPORT

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

just briefly address a question to the Minister of Transport

and Communications. I would like to ask the Minister if he

would deliver to each Member in the House a confidential memo

relating to the facts in the ferry service report with which he

was in discussion with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace). Are those facts going to be kept as a secret between

those two Members of the House?

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

going to prepare a complete statement on the whole situation and all of the

proposals which I certainly will make available to all Members of the House.

ARBITRATION OF

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Labour, Mr.

Speaker: in light of the strike vote taken yesterday by the

Union of Elevator Constructors who voted in favour of strike

action, may I ask whether the Minister's statement earlier this

year, which was that the Ontario binding arbitration would also

be binding in British Columbia, still stands?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the

Ontario arbitration award by which the union and elevator

companies had agreed to voluntarily be bound has not been

handed down at this point. Until it is, I am not in a position

to comment on what either of the parties may do with respect to

that arbitration. They have given me a commitment to abide by

it, and I presume that they will honour that commitment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in the light

of the strike vote, which I believe was 95 per cent in favour

of the strike, is the Minister indicating to the House that

there would be no change in the situation yesterday as opposed

to perhaps the day before or the week before that?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the

question quite clearly. I don't presume to anticipate what

people might do. I have a commitment, as I indicated; should

action which violates that commitment occur, I shall certainly

deal with it at that time. I am not in the business of, nor am

I interested in, anticipating problems before they occur.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is somewhat

hypothetical.

INVESTIGATION OF

OAK BAY EXPLOSION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as a director of Hydro: in

the light of the explosion on Oak Bay Avenue, could he assure

the House that all investigations have been carried out to make

sure there was not any faulty technique? If there was any fault

on the part of techniques used by B.C. Hydro, can we be assured

that they will cease forthwith?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I certainly share the Hon. Member's concern. It is my understanding that there

has been a review through the Department of Public Works as well as Hydro, and

we will take all steps to see that this kind of an occurrence will not be repeated.

[ Page 292 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if we are at a point

where there is any more specific information available to

explain what could have been a tremendous disaster, bad as it

was with one injury? Could the Minister of Public Works,

perhaps, bring us up to date on the investigation?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): …Our

Director of Safety dispatched an engineer over to make a study.

Yesterday afternoon I met with the fire chief, along with our

inspector. A study is underway but as yet there is really no

report. But I can say that we are very, very fortunate that no

one was killed and we are very, very fortunate and should be

very thankful for the efficient manner in which the City of

Victoria Fire Department got in there and found the shoemaker

who they didn't really know was in there. He had both arms and

both legs broken. They were able to get him out before he

suffocated. We were very fortunate.

CONTRACTS WITH COMPUTER FIRMS

RE INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. In view of

the anti-trust ruling in Tulsa, Oklahoma, regarding the

operations of one IBM and their monopoly operations, has the

Minister given any consideration to opening up the computer

requirements of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

to computer firms other than the IBM corporation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't read the particular finding of

that quote. I read the newspaper reports but I think we

indicated clearly as to why we found ourselves in the position

we did with regard to utilizing IBM for the Insurance

Corporation. The previous administration, for what reason I am

unable to say, locked the Motor Vehicle records into an IBM

procedure. Because of that we went to IBM. Now, in answer to

your question as to whether we are examining other processes,

just as soon as I can get free from the strictures placed on

the Motor Vehicles Branch by the previous administration, I am

certainly going to get free.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question concerning the same

matter, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister be prepared to tell the

House what commitment the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia has to the IBM Company with regard to fees and charges

and for what period of time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got those exact figures with

me, but we asked them to do a specific job for us and that's

the job they are doing.

PRICE PAID FOR

GIBSON'S BOWLADROME PROPERTY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question along the lines of getting the

Minister of Communications out of the strictures of the Motor

Vehicle Branch. May I ask the Minister of Public Works what

price was paid for the Gibson's Bowladrome property which is to

house the Minister and all his fellow bowlers in Victoria?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, it is not necessary to put that on the

order paper. We paid the appraised value of $765,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether there

was more than one appraiser involved in appraising that

property?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, there was. We got it for the lowest

appraisal.

CHARGE FOR EXTENDED CARE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health is

in the House, I wonder if I could ask him whether he would care

to comment further on a statement which I believe he made

public today to the effect that it is now government policy to

raise the charge for extended care patients to $5.50 per

day?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this

morning I was approached by the press, who asked whether or not

we were going to carry through with the $5.50 a day. I said, in

light of the Premier's statement yesterday that chronic care is

a high priority with this government — and naturally that is

why I was asked that question by the press this morning — I

indicated that yes, we felt it is very likely that we will have

to increase the rate because these people are all on Mincome;

we will have to increase the rate across the board. All on

Mincome, Mr. Speaker, that are in extended care right now.

But the thing that has held us up is the fact that if it is

going to harm anybody at all we have to have assessment

committees, either locally or provincial assessment committees,

to see to it that we reduce the rates for those people whom it

would hit financially. So that's generally speaking our policy

at this point. We are not raising any rates yet, and if the

newspapers indicate that we are, then it is not quite true.

This has to be when we go a step further in the delivery of

chronic care.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, that Member will also be

interested in the fact that I am announcing today that we have

purchased the

[ Page 293 ]

Richmond Heights Private Hospital.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister of Health care to just…I'm sure I know what he is

saying, but I think there is misunderstanding on this side of

the House that the assessment committees are intended to look

after the 10 per cent of patients in extended care hospitals

who may not be on Mincome. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is 10 per cent it's

rather high, Mr. Member. You will remember that Mincome is for

those people who are handicapped and those people who are over

65. So that if there is anybody who is flat on his back in

hospital, chronically ill, and he isn't in receipt of Mincome,

then he is rather a rarity. He should be. So therefore the only

people we are worried about are those people who are supporting

somebody else in their family and under those circumstances we

don't feel that we can charge them any more than….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just a clarification. The

Minister stated that the only people you were concerned about

were those who were supporting families and flat on their back,

I think it was. I would ask you what is your intention towards

young people who have been in car accidents, hiking accidents,

and who are having a prolonged stay in the hospital, where the

family itself is meeting and will have to meet this $5-odd a

day. They themselves may not qualify for Mincome or welfare

benefits and accordingly this cost would be a considerable

drain on the family resources and deprive other children and

the parents themselves of a normal existence in our

society.

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you, Madam Member. Mr. Speaker, what

we plan to do with that, and that is why we are going to have

an assessment committee, is anybody whom it is going to impair

financially is going to be taken care of. There is no question

about that whether they are young or old.

Now there won't be too many chronically ill young people.

You are talking about people who have broken necks and one

thing and another. Normally they qualify for Mincome but, if

they don't, certainly we are not going to leave that as a

monkey on the back of the parents of those people. The

assessment committee will be realistic and they will certainly

assess those people out, but that's it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, you have mentioned

that less than 10 per cent of the people in the hospitals in chronic care would

qualify or be a matter of concern. Would you have figures available that you

would be willing to file with the House as to how many people other than Mincome

are in fact in this position in British Columbia this month?

HON. MR. COCKE: We certainly don't have those figures

exactly available at the present time. You are talking about

extended care people?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes.

HON. MR. COCKE: You see, the problem is that that doesn't

really solve the problem. If you want those figures, we can get

them for you fairly readily and I can file them before the end

of this House. But that really doesn't give you the ballpark

statistics that we are looking for, and we are talking of

across-the-board chronic illness.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, I was just asking in reference to the

figures that the Minister himself used, and it would be very

helpful.

HON. MR. COCKE: We'll give them to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. In

your determination of chronic care, Mr. Minister of Health,

could you tell us if the government plans to increase the rates

as well for what is now known as intermediate care, or personal

care? Will that be included in the chronic care spectrum?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no

coverage for those people in intermediate care. There are three

levels of chronic care: there is personal care, now that's the

rest home level; there is intermediate care, which is the next

level up and requires some nursing; and there is the third

level, which is extended care. We do not cover those people who

are now in intermediate care. The people to whom the Premier

referred yesterday were that group of people who very

desperately need help — those people whom we often find in

nursing homes at the present time. But they are not being

covered now.

MR. McCLELLAND: But are they going to be?

HON. MR. COCKE: That is what we are proposing, that we are

going to cover those people as quickly as we can.

MR. McCLELLAND: At a higher rate? At the same rate?

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Minister of

[ Page 294 ]

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

Recently at Naramata, at a Man and Resources conference at

which the Minister was present, he indicated the university

endowment land was a wasted asset, I think was the way he put

it, and that it would be used for housing in the future. Would

the Minister outline to the House the way in which he intends

to accomplish this and what he is going to do to replace to the

university the income that it will lose from the endowment land

if it is taken from them now and put into another supposedly

higher use than at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a statement of policy that is required

on future policy, or is it…?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, he made a statement and I would like

him to elaborate on…

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, he made a statement?

MR. SMITH: …how he intends to replace the income that

will be lost to the university.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources):

As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there is in fact no income to the university

from the endowment land. There is no problem in replacing an income that the

university does not, in fact, receive from the endowment land. The concept,

however, is being worked on at this stage.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question. If it is not an income,

it certainly has a potential as an endowment land to the

university and an asset. Will the Minister make a statement to

the House what he plans to do for the university in that

respect?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to become involved in a

private briefing session for a more productive question period,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I might say, Mr. Premier, before we go on, I

omitted — and I apologize — I forgot to introduce

Representative Charles Elder and Representative Odum, both from

Oklahoma, who are in the Members' Gallery.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

motions. Motions and adjourned debates on motions.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition):

I find it a peculiar procedure. Last night at the closing of

the session we were advised that the Attorney General's bills

and the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance….

MR. SPEAKER: Well, may I point out to Members that today is

private Members' day. There is no priority or precedence motion

before the House, and in actual fact, whether you make the

motion or not, we would proceed to motions on' the orders of

the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was my error yesterday in suggesting

this. If you don't wish to go to private Members' day, which

has been a matter of controversy for years in this House, then

of course we will skip private Members' day. But that's the

order. It slipped my mind last night. Private Members' day is

the order.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order. We

know full well that the prerogative of the House leader and the

Premier of the province is to change the order if he so desires

with the consent of the House. We asked last night what the

order of business would be today. We were given an indication

of what it would be and then, just prior to coming in to this

session, I was advised that this would be private Members' day,

so….

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the Hon. Members that

whether a motion is put to you now, we will come to motions in

a matter of course and must deal with motions on private

Members' day. That's the rule, unless there's a motion that has

been adopted by the House that has priority over the normal

order of business today.

Now if the Premier chooses to make the motion at this stage

before we deal with petitions, he can advance motions ahead of

petitions; it's up to you. I suggest that the motion is in

order and that we should deal with the motion, which is that we

proceed to motions. That is the question.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), that motion 1 standing in my

name on the order paper be moved. (See appendix).

[ Page 295 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that there is no need for

seconders since we've changed our standing order on seconding

of motions, other than the throne speech motion.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This motion, Mr. Speaker, is a very, very important one to

the people of British Columbia. What it calls for is that we

acknowledge, as Members of this Legislature, that we recognize

that there would be some value in having an information service

provided by the provincial government to be available to all

citizens of British Columbia.

The way in which I envisage this procedure working, Mr.

Speaker, is that the government perhaps could utilize a

telephone number, perhaps a Zenith telephone number or some

system like that — similar perhaps to the system that is now in

operation in the Province of Saskatchewan — that would enable

people throughout British Columbia, whatever part of the

province they live in, to call a central information office to

find out matters that are of concern to them.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these matters could concern

individual problems that they are having with particular

government departments. It could be problems that they're

having with matters such as welfare rates, where they feel they

are getting an improper deal, perhaps, from their own local

welfare office. Or perhaps they feel that the Workmen's

Compensation Board has dealt with them unfairly. In many cases

they don't know where to turn; they don't know to whom they

should go next to ask for advice or for information.

Many of us, of course, do have access to the system. We know

lawyers or we know politicians or we know someone who can give

us the answer. But there are many, many thousands of people in

British Columbia who do not have that kind of access to the

system. In many cases they don't even know that they could turn

to their Member of Parliament or to their local MLA.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with the wide distribution

of information, there should be such a telephone number and

such a service available. Then people would be able to phone

who do have these kinds of problems with various government

departments, or with the problems concerning their own

livelihood or their own lives, that they think may be affected

in some way by the government. They would be able to call this

information service, and in some way an answer could be given

to them directly, or the person could be referred to the proper

agency or the proper official so that the particular problem

could be pursued.

I also see, Mr. Speaker, that when the government is announcing policies, or

making changes in policies such as, for example, the changes that we are now

making in the Mincome provisions — that people who aren't clear because they

don't understand the ads in the newspaper, or on television — people who aren't

clear as to whether or not they particularly are eligible for such a scheme

— could call and state their position, or be referred to the proper person.

So it could act as a vehicle by which people could have

their own problems solved, Mr. Speaker, and they could also get

information as to current government policy, whether it's

policy relating to old people and income levels or whether it's

policy relating to what the stumpage rate is currently on

forest products.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks by just saying

that I'm hopeful that a number of other MLAs will debate this

question; I think it's a very important one. It's one that I

hope the House will adopt unanimously. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, we

appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). But couldn't this better be

dealt with by expanding the facilities for the service by the

local MLA? If it's difficult for people to realize who their

local Member of Parliament is, don't you think it would be more

difficult to teach them a phone number?

I think that if we want service and information given to

citizens of a constituency, we should provide office facilities

for the local MLA on a year-round basis, and the phone services

could be from the MLA's office. When he's in the area he could

call through to Victoria or, when he's in Victoria at one of

the many sessions, those facilities could be used by his

constituents.

I believe that, taken to its furthest degree, this would be

another Information Canada all over again and would not help

the MLAs, particularly us new MLAs who have just had

considerable discussion with our constituents. One of the

things they specifically asked for was that the government do

establish facilities for their representatives.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

speak in support of this motion. Presently all the MLAs in this

House are acting as ombudsmen or ombudswomen for their

constituencies. But in point of fact, what happens is that when

the House is in session, only those people who can afford a

long distance call can afford to use their MLAs in this manner.

Although a long distance call from the Gulf Islands may not

cost very much, or even one from Vancouver may not cost very

much, it's quite possible that the people of the Peace River or

the people of Columbia River may never be able to use their

ombudsman who is sitting in this House, presumably to be

working on their behalf.

[ Page 296 ]

So I would like to support the idea of a toll-free telephone

that is in operation all year round. So even if the Members are

not sitting here themselves, the departments that people would

like to be in contact with can be reached.

Now I do not see this as another Information Canada. I do

not think this bureau should try to be all things to all

people. I think that the departments themselves would also have

to continue to operate as information-giving departments. They

would have to be responsible for giving out up-to-date

information on new legislation that's coming out of their

department and keeping the public informed.

I support the fact that there are still a lot of phone calls

coming in about confusion surrounding Mincome and one thing and

another. But I think that through the toll-free number these

calls can be referred, and should be referred, to the

departments concerned.

I would like to support what the last Member said, however,

and that is that I would very much appreciate having an office

in my constituency. Thank you.

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

we will support the motion, by all means. We are happy to

acknowledge the wisdom of having public information being

available to all the citizens in this province with the least

possible expense and inconvenience. As a matter of fact, I

trust that the Members of this House, by acknowledging the

importance of such a bureau, will at the same time recognize

that the bureau must be under the control of a Member of the

provincial government.

I trust that this will be the first step in the

establishment of the ombudsman who will be the individual who,

controlling this bureau, will be able to get the answer. Since

my Hon. friend, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann), has moved this motion, and since I'm certain it's

going to receive the unanimous support of all sides of this

House, perhaps the Members of the Treasury Bench may see fit to

approach the matter of ombudsman seriously and will provide

this service as a necessary part of the ombudsman's

responsibility.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, one of the things I

would hope this would sort out would be priorities. It's pretty

obvious to me that an MLA can be a pencil pusher and a person

that processes Mincome and homeowner grants and bursaries for

students and flood payments. And maybe that's going to

continue. But surely we're also legislators. I would like to

think that our priority is to know what's happening

legislatively and research-wise in this province.

I would certainly support the motion, hoping that it would help people to get

action immediately on a toll-free line to a central information bureau.

The other thing that, of course, occurs to me is that I

think it's pretty necessary sometimes for the various

departments of government to do a lot of their own PR.

Agriculture has their own news sheet here. But it's simply

information. The MLAs are given information stuff here.

Presumably, rather than always going to the MLA and taking a

lot of his time, it could go directly to the people.

So I would certainly support the motion, and would like to

get on with the other priorities.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, for one horrible

moment when the proposer of the motion was speaking, I heard

Ralph Pashley interviewing Phil Gaglardi again on that "Ask

Your Provincial Government" programme of the last government

and I thought, "My goodness, we're going to have to do

something very different."

Certainly it has merit and I agree with it. We certainly

will be supporting the motion. But there are, of course, facts

which I think we should bear in mind. One of which is that a

very few people who would phone such a service will ever be

able to distinguish what is city hall, what is the provincial

legislature, what is the federal government. I think that if we

do introduce such a motion, we try hard to make it an overall

"ask your government" or "ask your legislators" rather than

simply something which is restricted to the provincial

government. Because it simply won't work if people phone that

service and get the answer, "Go down and see city hall" or else

"Write your MP" or do something of that nature.

It's true that an ombudsperson or an ombudsman or

ombudswoman, whatever we may be, is partly our function; a

great deal of it is our function. This service would tend to

channel complaints, I think, directly to us or to the correct

department in this civil service. But it's going to be

something which is going to handle a large number of complaints

and I think that we want to set it up on the widest possible

basis so people don't find it just another way to get the

run-around.

I think it's got real merit, Mr. Speaker, but when I saw the

news release put out by the Premier's press secretary, Mr.

Twigg, over the Premier's signature, dealing with events of the

week which is going out, again I wondered whether or not we are

entering the area of the provincial government getting involved

in press releases and propaganda in a way which is a trifle

questionable in terms of expenditure of public money. Of

course, references to party affairs are obviously inappropriate

for such a news service, but still even the government things

can be slanted.

The mention was made by the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Rolston) about a press release by the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich). I received

[ Page 297 ]

one the other day. I was curious about it because it

referred to three projects for Indians in the Province of

British Columbia. I checked it out and found that all $150,000

involved in these three proposals was federal money. Now, not

to say that it shouldn't be announced by the Minister of

Agriculture in the Province of British Columbia rather than

Indian Affairs in Ottawa, but we are entering an area of

tremendous confusion as to who does what. I feel that such a

service will only be of real benefit to people if it goes

further than simply provincial matters and if it's extended to

include much more.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak

in support of this resolution, being a Member from a rural

constituency. There are many parts of my riding — and I'm sure

it's far worse than some of the other rural ridings — where the

people are 100 miles or 150 miles from the closest government

office. Often these people write to their MLA, the letter

arrives at their home and then is redirected to Victoria.

Before the MLA can get an answer back to them, it's often three

weeks. I think that a service like this could handle

departmental information in regard to highways, water rights,

and all these departments. I think it certainly would be a

great service to my riding.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I, like the

former speaker from our party, appreciate the concern of the

Member and what he should be trying to achieve in this motion.

I think it's been a matter of concern for everyone, whether you

are working on a voluntary basis in a community or whether you

are working as a legislator in the Province of British

Columbia, how do you get quick, concise, accurate information

to people. But I think this is a good idea approached from the

wrong way.

One of the grave dangers in what this Member has suggested

in setting up a bureau is that in fact you're only setting up

another bureau and another level of bureaucracy between the

people and the government or their MLA, or getting the answers

that they want. If you face the realities of the situation, a

bureau such as this would have to be monstrous in size because

I'm sure we can vouch that 90 per cent of the questions we are

asked in the letters we get need a great deal of research

before they can be answered. You may be dealing with land lots,

specific lots, or specific pension numbers, and what you would

have, really, is another level of MLAs running around doing

this type of work.

We think that the matter of the toll-free line is good and that this should

be instituted to the MLAs in their offices in Victoria. If you want a toll-free

number that can be used freely around the province, then you don't have to set

up a bureau to organize it — you can just advertise that number in the local

newspapers and magazines. Box 99 in the Consumer Affairs department is an excellent

example of how a number clicked, and everybody remembers box 99.

I think that what one would find is a duplication of

services. The MLA may have spoken to the individual personally

or this person may be writing to their MLA and then they will

be phoning the bureau — then you have two people going to the

various departments. We must accept that this information will

have to come from the department and we'll be putting an added

burden on our department in their workload duplication of

services that isn't going to carry out the intent of this

motion and what we all want to do.

Speaking as a rural MLA, I think we have found with being in

Victoria for two sessions and travelling on committees, one of

our major concerns is how do we keep our pulse and how do we

keep sensitive to the concerns and the problems of the people

in our area? To set up another level between the MLA,

regardless of what party, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker,

I think will make it even more difficult for the MLA to really

be and stay involved in this essential part of our work. It's

not what are people telling you at meetings, not what are you

hearing through the paper, but what are the individual problems

of the people?

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that we have to accept as MLAs

that part of our job is in fact to deal with government

departments — to deal with land problems, to deal with pension

problems and to deal with workmen's compensation problems. If

we set ourselves up as just a board of executives who sit in

here and vocalize on legislation, I think we'll find that that

type of vocalization will become more and more shallow because

we'll be dealing with theory, and we won't have the backup

experience and involvement that these problems of running

around give us in dealing with local people.

I wouldn't accuse the Member of taking a good idea and using

it for a political purpose, Mr. Speaker. But, I would ask, in

recognizing that this side will not support this motion, that

through you, the Premier of this province will take under

consideration what we have said. That we'll not form another

level of bureaucracy, but we'll do what he's often wanted to

do, help us to be more sensitive and more efficient as MLAs and

help us to — you as a government or all of us as a government — get answers more readily back to people. A personal visit from

your MLA, or from somebody, on a problem is of much more value

in 40 per cent of all our work than a telephone call from a

pensioner which really just goes around the circle and comes

back again via a telephone call. I think it would be separating

MLAs from the people.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, my

comment to this motion really and truly

[ Page 298 ]

is just this: it seems to me that air will do anything in

this chamber to fill a vacuum. We're sitting at the highest

legislative cost of any legislators in the Province of British

Columbia and we're debating the merits of an invention such as

a long distance toll-free telephone line. To me it's absolute

nonsense. It's an administrative function; it's not something

that should really and truly be the subject of debate in this

House. It's just too bad that the government hasn't got its

legislation ready and we could get on with the business of the

public.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this party would

oppose the motion. I'm sorry that I haven't been in the House

to hear all the comments, but my comment certainly would be

that this is just another bureaucratic measure which really

should not be necessary, If individuals are not getting the information which they

need within a reasonable amount of time then, unfortunately,

we, the MLAs, probably are as much to blame as anyone. If

someone contacts their MLA by phone or letter…I'm amazed to

hear one Member state that it might be three weeks before the

individual citizen gets any contact, directly or indirectly,

with the MLA.

I can see some merit in clause B of the motion for

individuals living in distant points of the province, and I

might be prepared to support that kind of motion or that part

of the motion. But I would have to agree with the former

speaker that if this kind of information bureau were to turn

out to be similar to some of the federal efforts in this

direction, I just shudder at the cost and the inefficiency of

the similar body nationally. So that while I can see the intent

behind the motion, and while I could support

section B in

total, I would have to oppose this motion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if I may try to put myself in

the place of an MLA, and especially an opposition MLA — since I

spent 12 years in that capacity — I would agree with the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that it's purely an

administrative matter. However, he must understand the

atmosphere within which this motion finds itself on the floor

of the House.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann)

came to me last session as a new MLA and complained, quite

rightly, about the lack of office space, the lack of

secretarial help, the lack of free phone calls as an MLA. Now,

Mr. Speaker, I put to you the fact that for many years these

things were not even discussed in this House and, as a matter

of fact, we were not even permitted the courtesy of free phone

calls or offices, because it was considered to be a political

blank wall that we were dealing with.

In any other normal situation, the suggestion by the Member would have been

acted upon immediately by this government; however, by acting upon it, considering

the atmosphere of politics in this province, the first action would have brought

yells and screams and hollers from the opposition benches — and I won't name

names — but certain opposition Members would have seized upon this as another

attempt by the government to propagandize. There is no need to reveal in public

all the details of how difficult it was to get an agreement to have the MLAs

receive $250 a month for the beginning of secretarial help. It was a major breakthrough

of removing some administrative practices away from politics in this province.

Now that atmosphere, in my opinion, has not completely gone,

and so it is necessary, in my opinion, to have a simple

administrative matter like this debated in the House so that we

can de-escalate the atmosphere that has existed around simple

matters such as assisting MLAs to do their job. I can't help

but comment on the note of irony that the suggestion of

full-time offices and full-time secretarial help should come

from the representative of the seat that formerly was the block

to any kind of administrative assistance like this. It is a

matter of irony, and I only commented on it on that basis.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Madam Member, these areas, in my

opinion, are outside of politics, and the purpose of the

motion, as I said, is to de-escalate the kind of primitive

criticisms that essentially emanate around actions like this,

if a government were to move in without this kind of debate.

Obviously, once committed in sharing these needs in a form such

as this, we can move to a more mature level of administrative

practice in this province.

For my own self, I see no reason why an MLA should not have

an office and a secretary in his home riding — none at all.

But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that considering the

atmosphere and the structure of this House, had the government

done that without this kind of debate, the immediate response

would have been, "There they go, the socialists are wasting

money again." Now I am not saying that I don't welcome

opposition — I look forward to it — but what I am saying is

there are some levels of primitive opposition that have to be

aired and dealt with openly in this House so that we can, over

a period of time, hopefully raise ourselves to a more mature

level of understanding of what are administrative matters and

what are political matters. The plea for office space and the

plea for secretarial help, I hope, will fall on receptive ears

in the Treasury Board. Certainly they are receptive to me, no

question about it, and I hope, with all-party understanding, we

can facilitate that for MLAs.

[ Page 299 ]

In terms of a phone call….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and we now have an all-party exchange

that it's a good thing, so we've done something that's matured

this place a little bit more. We have removed this kind of

administrative thing which the Member for Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) complains about so rightly. We have removed this

administrative thing from the kind of primitive analysis that

it would have received in the past. Now we have agreed, we can

move.

In terms of a phone call, there is a difference, and the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is absolutely correct.

We have two sittings of the House now, plus we are asking MLAs

to move around the province. If it will be helpful for a person

who needs information immediately on a problem to pick up the

phone and call directly to Victoria because they can't reach

their MLA, and some information given over a phone, purely on

the reaction to the specific question, and on an administrative

basis, then I think it would be useful. But if this service is

to be instituted, it has to be instituted on the basis of

understanding that the civil servant who answers the phone is

not involved in politics in any way, or any shape, or any

form.

When we came to office…I am just asked now for a

catalogue of all the information officers that were on civil

service staff. Each Minister had two or three information

officers in his own department, and we can show you press

releases coming out like the bushel load, and information

officers and various ministries who never met each other. If

you go through your estimates in the past, those information

officers were added on, and added on, to each Ministry. I am

not interested in that.

What I am looking for, out of this motion, is a simple

understanding that if we proceed, and people are hired by the

Civil Service Commission, they should be skilled, they should

be pleasant, they should be warm and understanding on a phone

call and not just say, "Go here or go there, or write here or

write there," but actually have some system of BF — of

bringing forward the phone call — and perhaps even phoning back

and saying, "You called a week ago, have you got the

information you need?" Now that's purely administrative, and if

the House agrees on this kind of thing and this atmosphere, I

see no reason why we can't move to both directions. Offices,

stenographic assistance to the MLAs, an information service;

but the debate was necessary, in my opinion, because of the

past political atmosphere. I think maybe we have raised it a

bit in the debate today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Hall

Cummings

Rolston

Macdonald

Dent

Anderson, G.H.

Barrett

Lorimer

Barnes

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Steves

Nimsick

Cocke

Kelly

Hartley

King

Webster

Calder

Lea

Lewis

Nunweiler

Young

Liden

Brown

Nicolson

McGeer

Radford

Skelly

Anderson, D.A.

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams, L.A.

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Gardom

Gorst

NAYS — 12

Chabot

Fraser

Schroeder

Richter

Phillips

Bennett

Jordan

McClelland

Wallace

Smith

Morrison

Curtis

PAIRED

Lauk

Brousson

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I move motion 2

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with the social services tax

on books, children's sports equipment and printed material from

the Queen's Printer such as Hansard and The British Columbia

Gazette . The tax on books and printed material, Mr. Speaker,

has been referred to as a tax on Plato but not on Playboy . When

a textbook is purchased, the purchaser must state at the time

that the book is for school use. I find, after talking to

booksellers in this area, that the largest selling book items

are those dealing with self-improvement and the furthering of

one's own value to the community.

I ask the question if this tax is really a tax on knowledge,

recreation and self-improvement in the context of the use of

the printed book today. I would say that the committee, when it

comes to examine this question, should attempt to determine how

much revenue is derived from the social services tax on these

items under examination and if this tax discriminates against

the low income earner and discourages those particular people

from using these items, Mr. Speaker, I put the motion to the House.

M R. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will support this

motion. We only regret

[ Page 300 ]

that the mover had not gone further with his motion and

asked for the removal of the tax as it exists on the various

items.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I'm very happy to see

this motion before the House. I must say that, having gone back

to UBC a few years ago myself, we were put in the position

where, when we bought our books at the university book store,

we were charged the social services tax and we were given a

little slip showing what the tax was so that at the end of the

year we could recover that money from the tax. Most of us

didn't bother keeping the slips and some of them collected from

others so that they could make a bonanza on it.

I think it's a very poor tax on books. During the fall

season when university students are starting to university, you

can go into any bookstore in Vancouver, and if you have to buy

a book that happens to be something that is on a university

curriculum they will ask you if you are going to university or

not. If you say you are going to university they don't charge

you the tax; if you say you're not, they charge you the tax. I

think it's a discriminatory sort of thing. There are a great

number of people who buy books for serious reading; there isn't

any reason why they shouldn't have the privilege of buying

books without tax the same as university students going to

university or students going to high school. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to ask the Hon. mover of this motion if

he would accept an amendment to eliminate the tax. Let's get on

with the business — everybody in the House is in support of the

thing.

MR. SPEAKER: It would take more than that, as the Hon.

Member knows.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): We've read motion 2

very carefully and I want to advise the House that there are a

number of proposals of a similar nature arriving, if not daily,

certainly regularly to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board

are currently looking into some of the taxation policies and

some of the effects of relief, such as is indicated in motion 2

at this current time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, most people

having spoken, I rise frankly as a member of the Treasury Board

and I want to adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the

House so that we can have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

is not in the House. Could this matter be deferred?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) is not in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The purpose of this motion is

quite simple. Since there was no parliamentary procedure for a

Member to submit a minority report with the report of a select

standing committee of the House, I prepared a minority opinion

and sent it with correspondence to the Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and to

yourself and to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

detailing my concern with a couple of the items, two of the

items in particular, which were contained in the report to the

House from the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and

Education, basically with relation to the announcement made by

the Health Minister today with regard to the provision of

equitable care for various levels of health care services. It

was my concern that those levels of care should be treated

equally from a financial point of view, because I felt that the

people should be allowed to move from one level of health care

to another without suffering any financial penalty. Also, if we

are to treat our Mincome recipients on the same level as those

other people in society and give them their Mincome payments

without any strings attached, Mr. Speaker, I felt that that

report should have read differently. Basically, Mr. Speaker,

what I'd like to have is the opportunity to have that minority

opinion and the correspondence with the Health Minister tabled

in the House so that it could be entered on the records of this

House.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, we're going to break a 20-year tradition today. There has never

been a minority position filed in this House in the last 20 years. Never. I

tried as a member of committees in the past to file minority positions. We've

never been permitted that, but we're only too happy, Mr. Member, to let you

file your report. But remember that this is breaking new ground for this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to remind the Hon. Member that it is

contrary to standing orders, as they, exist, to file a minority

report. This resolution, in effect, reverses that procedure in

this particular instance but does not thereby change standing

orders.

[ Page 301 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this motion

even though I agree with the principle which the Member

explained as to why he did submit a minority report, but that

isn't really germane to what we're saying. What is so important

to me is: firstly, the Member has that right today, and the

government has explained that he does; secondly, it explains to

the House and to the public that, in fact, minority voices will

be heard in this province; and the third point I can see is

that maybe it enables the House to take a look at the need to

change our standing orders, should we in fact have to "go

through the time and procedure in the House so that a minority

voice can be heard."

I would think that if the House learns from this little

experience we can perhaps change the standing orders in the

near future, which will make it routine, since we are able to

have much more committee work, that any Member of that

committee, of any party, can submit a minority report. I hope

that will be the consequence of today's motion.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak in

support of this motion. I was the chairman of the committee of

which the Hon. Member was a member. At the time when he filed

with the committee his minority report, the committee was

certainly quite willing to accept it because we feel that this

is a democratic process.

In point of view, the issue of whether private hospitals

should be permitted to make a profit off the sick was discussed

by the full committee and there was a vote on it. As far as I

can remember, and my memory may serve me wrong, this Member was

the only person who voted in favour of that concept. The rest

of the committee agreed with the report which was tabled, to

the effect that no one should make a profit off sick people.

And so I think that we should permit this Member to file his

report. We should make it part of the record so that everyone

should be able to read and know the stand that this particular

Member took on this very vital issue of making a profit off

people's illness. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: (Mike off.) …I'm sorry. As I explained, I must have the

original resolution signed by the Hon. Member before me, not what is in the

books, but the actual resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, it was filed with the Clerk.

MR. SPEAKER: The one that you file on the day of…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the day resolutions are called and debated,

the Member in charge of a resolution sends a copy signed by himself to the table

and the Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of

procedure as well as I should have been. May I sign the motion

and deliver it to the Clerk at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. Tear it out and send it up.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe somebody would like to talk for a

minute.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I think I've seen it

happen before.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He never expected to have it passed.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: If there are no further Members wishing to

speak, the Hon. Member for Langley closes the debate.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I just want

to remind the House that I, perhaps as no other Member on the

former opposition did, used the proper procedure in the House

in order to get this minority report filed. I want to thank the

chairperson of that committee, because she's absolutely correct

in her statement that the committee was to allow me to file

this report before we realized that the procedure wasn't

available, and I want to thank the Health Minister (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) for his comments about accepting this report. All I

want, Mr. Speaker, as the Member has pointed out, is to have my

views known as well as everyone else's, and I stand behind

them.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 3.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I move, seconded by the Hon.

Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) resolution 3 on the order paper.

(See Appendix.)

If I may, a few words on this resolution, Mr. Speaker.

First, I'd like to say that the resolution is worded in such a

manner as to give the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

flexibility in order to look into the situation of providing

tuition fees or whatever for our students living in remote

areas. It is my hope as well that Mr. Bremer, during the course

of his investigations of the school system in British Columbia,

will give this matter his serious

[ Page 302 ]

consideration.

In my riding, Mr. Speaker, which is some 260 miles long to

the mainland coast, there are many, many small communities,

isolated from each other by natural geographic boundaries. And

because some of these communities are small, and because

economic conditions are such for some of the people in these

communities, it is almost impossible for some families to be

able to afford to send their children to schools and to higher

learning facilities in the lower mainland or elsewhere. I feel

that tuition fees and living expenses, as well as travel

expenses, should be provided for grades 11 and 12 and

post-secondary students where the courses they desire to take

are not available to them near their homes.

There's one particular huge forest industry in British

Columbia which, in a small way, does recognize this situation,

Mr. Speaker, and I'll just mention this briefly. This company

provides scholarships of $500 to students who are deemed

qualified. If these students have to commute, say from New

Westminster, for instance, to Vancouver, they receive an extra

$200. If the students have to live away from home, they receive

an extra $400 as part of that scholarship. That is not very

much, and I don't think it's nearly adequate, but it is a step

in the right direction.

In particular, this resolution applies to native people not

under the auspices of the federal government. The status person

now receives from the federal government full tuition fees,

travel costs, living allowances at Manpower rates and full

medical coverage. Similar support should be extended to the

sons and daughters of the 55,000 non-status people of this

province. The First Citizens Fund now provides a maximum grant

to a small proportion of the deserving non-status people, but

the maximum amount is only $800 and is grossly inadequate in my

opinion. It costs about $2,000 a year to attend university.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), in her

speech last week, discussed some of the problems and mentioned

the deplorably low number of Indian people who complete grades

11 and 12 but do not continue to university. This in my

opinion, Mr. Speaker, is primarily due to lack of funds. For

these reasons, I hope that this House will support this

resolution, and I thank you for your attention.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I rise on behalf of the official

opposition to support this motion. As the House is probably aware, I had a bill

in the House last session in the spring that would have brought about the same

end result. When the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) closed debate on the

motion at that time, he said that the government would be giving this some very,

very serious consideration. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that actually I'm quite

surprised the government hasn't moved sooner on this, I really am, because I

thought they would have moved.

But in speaking in support of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I

want to say again the same as the Member who has just been

seated pointed out, that the high cost of transportation does

work a hardship on many families who would like to see their

children attend an institution of higher learning in the lower

mainland. It's not only the cost of transportation, it's the

cost of providing room and board.

Many students who would like to continue their education,

after they graduate from secondary school, opt out because they

know that their families cannot afford the extra cost. I feel

that people in the remote areas who are actually pioneering — some of them are still pioneering in the remote areas of this

province to open up this province so that the rest of the

residents can live in the lap of luxury here in Victoria and in

the lower mainland — should not only have access to

institutions by way of financial support, but those people, as

I have stated before, should be given a bonus.

But instead of that, Mr. Speaker, what do we have? We have

the entire opposite situation where airlines in many instances,

serving the remote areas, are ripping off the people who live

in those remote areas. I refer to one airline, Canadian Pacific

Airlines, whose charge for transportation between Vancouver and

Fort St. John is by all means too much. I realize those

airlines pioneered and did a lot to help open up the north but

now they're making a good profit on those runs and they

shouldn't be charging the people who live in those remote areas

those high prices.

I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, to learn of the Minister

of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) policy that she announced

yesterday afternoon to take education to the more remote areas — in building up colleges in those areas. I'm certainly in

favour of this.

HON. MR. COCKE: Maybe it would help you. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that? Yes, it might help me, I might go

back to school, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). That's a good idea. I think, as a

matter of fact, there are quite a few of us in this House who

could go back and have a little touch-up with our

education.

Regardless of that, even if you take junior colleges to the

remote areas, you are always going to have institutions like

BCIT. I am sure that you are not planning on building two or

three of those in remote areas. There will always be instances,

regardless, where you will need to assist students to attend

some of these institutions of higher learning.

I think we could also look forward, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page

303 ]

to having some of the students who maybe live on the lower

mainland attending some of these colleges in the north. Not

only would they go up there to take specific courses, but it

would also give them the opportunity to go to the north country

and understand what makes that country tick. Then they would

have a greater appreciation of our province.

At the present time, for instance, the Dawson Creek

Vocational School is the only vocational school that teaches an

agricultural course. We have students from the lower mainland

who go there, most of them under some other subsidized

programme. We teach one of the best courses in pipeline welding

in the Dawson Creek Vocational School and we should assist

students from the lower mainland who want to go up there and

take that course. We should assist them financially.

At the present time, under the federal Canada Manpower,

people who are re-educating themselves to take different

positions are subsidized by our federal government, both in

transportation and in costs of living, to take these courses.

Also, mechanics who want to upgrade themselves, or who want to

go into an apprenticeship, are paid their transportation and

board to come to the lower mainland to finish off this

particular course. So we are doing this in some instances under

the federal government, under Canada Manpower, at the present

time.

We have stated before in this House, Mr. Speaker — I brought

it up last year — that there is a shortage of dentists, a great

shortage of dentists, in the Peace River area. And in some of

the areas to the west of Prince George there is a shortage of

doctors. I pointed out in this House that one of the reasons

there is a shortage of these professional people in the north

is that people who are born and brought up on the lower

mainland who have access to the Faculty of Dentistry at UBC

don't want to move out.

But, as I said in this House, if you take some of the

students from the north, bring them down here and let them have

the opportunity to learn dentistry or medicine, a large

percentage of them — and I can get figures to bear this out — will return to the north country because they are acclimatized,

they like the life up there, they have been brought up there.

This will, in the long run, relieve the critical shortage of

qualified physicians and dentists in the north.

So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to support this resolution

again and, in supporting it, I want to urge the government to

take some immediate action, because the problem is critical at

the present time. The Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) said that he recognized the problem.

He wanted to do something about it. I know he is receiving

letters from some of my constituents about the shortage of

dentists in the area.

This would help, I feel, if you take — you know, it's the old saying, "You

can take the boy from the farm but you can't take the farm out of the boy."

Well, if you take students from the north, bring them down here and train them,

they will return. There is flexibility written into this motion, Mr. Speaker,

and I hope this government will take immediate action.

MR. McGEER: I was just afraid for a moment there that the

Treasury Board would be cutting off the NDP backbenchers before

we had a chance on the opposition side to support them

properly.

I want to thank the Member for bringing forward this

resolution. The Member may not know this but this has been a

very long-standing policy of a number of parties in this House,

particularly the Liberal Party. It was Ray Perrault, the former

leader of the party, who first brought it forward in 1960. It

had been debated many times in the House when I first arrived

in 1963. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, the days when the NDP

supported this resolution.

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, very clearly. That was one of the

many things they were going to get right at when they were

government. The Premier — he was going to do something about

it. All those northern Members for the NDP — they were going to

do something about it. But do you know who wasn't going to do

anything about it? That was the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips).

I remember when he sat down where this Member was sitting — when those of us on the opposition side were asking for this

very same resolution. He was deaf at that time. Couldn't have

been less interested in equalization grants for university

students.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you'd better go back and look at your

Hansard . I got up and supported it.

MR. McGEER: Yes, once you got on the opposition side.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I think it is an excellent idea, and everybody

is for it until they have to put up the money. That's when

their enthusiasm begins to wane. But, Mr. Speaker, just

yesterday we went over the figures — they weren't denied — that

the government will have $2 billion in revenue this year. The

Premier could have increased his budget by $270 million. He can

still bring in a supplementary budget. No programme, including

this one — and I say this to the introducer of the resolution — no programme, including this one, need be held back in British

Columbia for lack of funds — perhaps for lack of will.

I think that at a time when the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) can have a desk that sleeps

[ Page 304 ]

three, the students who live in northern British Columbia

can have a subsidy to improve their education.

Maybe in the future we might be able to get a higher level

of debate in this very legislative chamber.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I rise to support this

motion. I can see where this kind of debate has far-reaching

effects. Already we have the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) a member of the Social Credit party, asking that the

government take over CPA to make things more economical in air

fares for the north. We would like to thank you for that. CPA

won't thank you for that. You will lose a little money.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I rise with mixed emotions for this motion,

Mr. Speaker, because, as an uneducated bumpkin from the north,

I have had the opportunity since coming down to rub elbows with

all the educated people in the south. I'm not sure whether I'm

speaking for the people in the north when I speak of the

opportunity to come down and have that higher learning.

When I look at this House — you know, you have to look at

the party breakdown. I would suppose that in the Social Credit

Party with their 10 Members and in the New Democratic Party

with our 38 by ratio we may have less people of higher learning

than in the other parties. And look how badly we have done,

compared with the parties with all the higher learning. It's

mixed emotions.

But, seriously, I think that this is a topic that does cross

party lines and the lines between cabinet and the backbench and

private Members, because it really is a motion that deals with

rural Members and rural situation and urban Members and urban

situations.

For years in this House when the opposition parties were

trying to get this through, on this side of the House, sitting

on the cabinet benches, were many rural cabinet Ministers who

did have deaf ears to the plea. I am hopeful, as a rural

cabinet Minister and Member of this House, that my urban

colleagues will listen — even those who are from the rural

areas — and will join with me. And those in New Westminster and

Surrey — I'm sure they will join me in asking for this motion

to be accepted.

There are many reasons why we can't keep a stable work force

in the north. One of the reasons is the lack of opportunity for

higher learning. People there who are working and have children

who are ready to enter university oftentimes leave so that they

can move to an urban centre to take advantage of the university

situations in Victoria and, more specifically, in

Vancouver.

In a time when we are trying to disperse our population throughout British

Columbia so that we don't have a congested-population situation on the lower

mainland and Vancouver Island, I think this is one small way, although an important

way, that we can get people to live in the north.

Right now we have a 35 and 40 per cent labour turnover in

the north. In some situations and in some industries it is as

high as 60 and 65 per cent turnover. We must work to stop

that.

I agree with the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) that the best way to get professional people to stay

in the north is to bring people from the north south, train

them, and I think they will go back. But when we get urban

people coming up for a short time, they don't really have the

interests of the rural scene in mind. They stay for only a

short time and then they leave. I think it would be to the

benefit of all rural British Columbia if we could get our rural

people in, get them trained and then have them come back to

rural British Columbia where they will live with a certain

amount of happiness. Because that is where they are from and

that is where they would like to remain. So I support this

motion wholeheartedly.

MR. WALLACE: Coming as I do from the rural riding of Oak

Bay, I also would like to support the motion. The point has

been made, but it cannot be repeated too often, that our

society is lacking in professionally-trained people who should

be available to serve in the north, preferably on a voluntary

basis. But I cannot share the optimism of the Minister of

Highways, who has just spoken, that if you bring the rural

individuals to the city and train them as doctors or dentists

or dieticians or some similar profession, I don't think it

follows that they will go back. That really isn't something

that we need debate, but it is well worth trying.

The fact is that undoubtedly the person in the rural area as

of now does not get a fair break compared to his city

neighbour, and that's the point we're debating. There seems

little doubt to me that every incentive, both financial and

otherwise, should be made available to see that the resident of

the rural area does get the same opportunity of education,

period. Never mind higher education.

I had an inquiry from a school teacher the other day

wondering how the schools in the rural area can cope with the

point was made very clearly to me that, in the bigger centres

and the urban centres, there usually can be one school in the

general area which can provide the kind of instruction in

countries. The particular country this incident related to was

example

[ Page 305 ]

wasn't so far away; the gentleman who raised the matter with

me was in Campbell River.

It just occurs to me that maybe not only is it a question of

giving financial help and assistance, it is also a question of

looking in a wider spectrum at the whole concept of education

in the rural areas to be sure that services and facilities be

made available so that, as far as is possible, the child

doesn't have to leave the rural area or come to the city. Who

knows that it is an advantage for a person who has grown up in

a rural area to come to a city? He may have no wish to come to

a city, with the mess some of the cities are in, the exposure

to crime and alcoholism and drug addiction and goodness knows

what. I would have to question, if I lived in a rural area,

whether it was fair that my son or daughter had to leave my

home community.

Again we are talking in general terms. It is quite obvious

you can't have a college and a university in every rural city,

but I think the point has been raised in this House before — and I welcome the Minister of Education's statement just

yesterday — that indeed regional college systems will be

expanded. There will be this very genuine attempt to widen not

only the scope of college education, but to bring the colleges

a bit closer to some of the citizens in outlying areas.

As far as the training of professional people is concerned,

I think this is also intimately related to this motion. I can

only conclude that children living in the distant areas have

less opportunity to be accepted in faculties in UBC.

Furthermore, I hope this motion will serve to encourage the

government to continue the programme it has already announced

of enlarging the medical school at UBC — and someone else

commented on the lack of dentists up north.

So I would certainly support this particular motion, but I

would have been a little happier, Mr. Speaker, had the

government brought in some form of specific legislation. I

think that it is a pity where every Member of the House, I

would think, supports the concept, and yet we debate it in the

form of a motion from a government backbencher. I would just

say with regret that I think the Minister of Education should

have known long ago, and does indeed know, that proper

legislation could have been implemented this session.

But nevertheless, I certainly support the concept.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of

the motion that this government consider the advisability of

implementing legislation to provide equalization grants for

students living in the remote areas of the province.

A number of arguments have already been put forward. It has

also been mentioned that some steps, both by the federal and

the provincial governments, have been taken along the way to

try to achieve some kind of equalization of opportunity for

education.

However, I just want to reiterate one or two of the

arguments and then, briefly add a couple more, because this is

a problem I've been concerned with for a long, long time.

I started university in 1949; I went for two years and I

lived at home in Vancouver. I worked in a gas station part-time

and some of the time in a cookie factory, making chocolate

eclairs. Now I was very lucky. Not only did I get some free

chocolate eclairs, but I had the opportunity to go to

university by getting some money, together with what my parents

were able to put up.

I was able to go, but it was touch and go whether I could

make it or not. And it was because I lived in the city that I

was able to go. I could live at home and I was provided with

free room and board and so on.

Now there are many young people in the country who can't do

that. Even if they could make chocolate eclairs, they still

couldn't hack it. And so it is essential that they get some

kind of financial help so that, together with any part-time

jobs they might have or other things they might do, they can

afford to go.

I taught in the interior for many years, in the Okanagan, in

the Cariboo and also in the north, and it was the same

situation all over. There were many young people who graduated

from grade 12 with high marks and tremendous potential, and yet

they are still sitting up there, most of them doing jobs far

beneath their potential in terms of contribution to society.

They should have gone to university and they should be making a

far better and bigger contribution than they are making.

Now there are three other arguments I just want to mention.

One is that we live in a world-competitive economy. The fact is

that educationally Canada is falling behind some of the other

countries, and that means we are going to fall behind

technologically. Therefore, it is very important that we

consider our young people as part of, you might say, the

national development or the development of our total economy

and of our potential culturally and so on, so that they are

educated to make the contribution and we will take our proper

place in the world situation.

A second point is that, as each individual student goes up

each step — I noticed this: I went back to school twice. I went

'49 – '51, I was out of university for a while and then I went

back again a few years later. And the thing that I noticed was

that each time you went a little bit higher on the educational

ladder, more opportunities opened up to you. Anyone who has

gone through an educational process knows very well that, as

you go a little bit further ahead educationally, the options

that are open to you for employment and for cultural

opportunities increase. I think that is easily the most

important human argument, that all young people in this

province

[ Page 306 ]

should be able to avail themselves of an educational

opportunity so that they can have the same options open to

them, economically for employment and culturally, that everyone

else has got; at least so that they can develop to their

highest potential. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I cannot, under the duties of my

office, proceed without referring to the standing orders and

pointing out to the Hon. Members that the resolution would be

out of order in the hands of a private Member and without a

message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, under

standing order 66.

I remind the Hon. Members that it is not merely a question

of approval from a Minister of the Crown, but this requires the

expenditure of moneys and it is prohibited to the Legislature

to do so by reason of the British North America Act ,

Section

54, which first recites the provisions relating to the

expenditure of public moneys for the House of Commons, and I

quote from that

section 54 of the BNA Act, 1867:

"It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or

pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the

Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax

or Import, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended

to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session

in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is

proposed."

Section 90 of the BNA Act, which was adopted by this

province in the terms of union and which is adopted or

constitutionalized in

section 2 in the Revised Statutes of

British Columbia ,

section 90, also says that:

"The following Provisions of (the British North America) Act

respecting the Parliament of Canada, namely — the Provisions

relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills, the Recommendation on

Money Votes, the Assent to Bills, the Disallowance of Acts, and

the Signification of Pleasure on Bills reserved — shall extend

and apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if

those Provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in

Terms to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof,

with the Substitution Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, for

the Governor General, of the Governor General for the Queen…"

Secretary of State, and so on.

Therefore, I must rule the resolution in its present form

out of order in line with all the previous decisions of the

House.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): Point of

order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In this ruling, the motion calls upon the

government to "consider the advisability of," and does

not call for expenditures of the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: That's quite correct. If the Hon. Member will

refer to a vast number of motions which have been put before

this House over the years, almost from its inception, where a

motion requests consideration or advisability, it is out of

order under standing order 66. Those decisions are available

right up to the most recent date. I cannot thereby carve out a

new formula unless the constitution is changed.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd just like to suggest one thing

perhaps, Mr. Speaker. With the unanimous consent of the House

perhaps we could have an expression of sympathy for the House

Leader. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank goodness we're not bound by all

other precedents.

Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Resolution No. 4.

(See appendix.)

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, you mean?

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the

Premier as House Leader called for resolution No. 3 and he

called for resolution No. 4 in rotation of the way they appear

on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: They're supposed to be called in order,

right.

MR. SMITH: At the time the person who was to move resolution

No. 3 was not in the House he called for resolution No. 4. That

Member was not in the House when he called for it. I believe if

you refer to standing order 31 on page 9 of our standing

orders, you will find that in dealing with this question, where

a resolution or a motion is called and no one stands to their

feet, I would suggest to you to move adjournment of the debate

to the next sitting of the House on behalf of the Member who

was not present. It would require unanimous consent now of this

House to go back to resolution No. 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I point out to the Hon. Member that, as a

courtesy to the Members who were absent the motion was allowed

to stand and no one objected at the time. Therefore, it

follows, if you read standing order No. 31, which says:

"

(2) Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand,

[ Page 307 ]

retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and

be placed on the Order Paper for the next sitting after those of the same class

at a similar stage."

I could have allowed the motion to be dropped from the order

paper but there was no objection, and, as a courtesy to the

Hon. Members for the House — which I hope I can continue — when

a Member is absent from the House I presume that when he

returns the Members will not object if his motion is then

called.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not objecting to the fact

that the Member should be allowed to present his motion. All I

suggest to you is that under the standing orders of the House

as I read them, the House Leader should ask for unanimous leave

of the House to return to motion No. 4 because of the fact that

ordinarily it would drop from the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: It says: …"otherwise they will disappear

from the Order Paper." I'm hoping something will happen before

they disappear from the order paper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous consent

of the House to call motion No. 4 — although I don't believe

that's necessary and I don't know if that's your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, I will ask for that leave. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed. Motion no. 4.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I want to move motion No. 4

standing in my name. Although it's not necessary, the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) wishes to

second it.

This is one of the cases, Mr. Speaker, where a law was

passed at a time when it was needed, perhaps didn't go far

enough, but was a good step forward at that time to cover a

particular problem. The particular Act, the S mall Loans Act,

Canada , which was passed many years ago, has a limit of $1,500.

As long as someone goes to a lending agency and wants to borrow

less than $1,500, he runs into no problems as far as exorbitant

rates of interest or exorbitant conditions or writing costs or

anything that they want to tag on to it as extra charges since

these are strictly controlled by the law.

But the time has passed when this should be left at $1,500. I feel it should

be raised much higher than it is because of today's higher costs and inflation,

and because there are many, many people in British Columbia who are approaching

finance companies particularly and are being talked into taking more than the

$1,500 limit, in case it should be required.

They are asked if their furnace might need repairs or their

television set might need repairs. Rather than settle for this

amount or to pay off another small loan they have, they could

borrow $1,600, $1,800, $2,100 and pay very little more over the

period of time. In this way the company avoids entirely the

provisions of the Small Loans Act, Canada .

It has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, many times in my

riding. I know that the standard answer of the finance company

is that we don't force anyone to take any money. Mr. Speaker,

if it was constitutionally possible, I'd like to introduce a

bill in the House, or urge the government to introduce a bill

in the House, to do away with finance companies altogether. I

think they're a blight on the whole landscape, not only in

British Columbia but in all of Canada.

They're deliberately putting on extra charges after talking

some applicant for a loan into getting over the $1,500 limit;

and for this he suffers for a long time thereafter. Even if he

should be able to get a hold of cheaper money at a better rate

of interest and go down to pay off the note completely and be

clear of these people, he finds there is a charge even to do

this.

I wish the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Brousson) was in the House today after hearing him speak on his

attitude and opinion on some of the — as it's been said today — rip-offs that are pulled in the mortgage field. This is the

type of rip-off and direct evasion of the law that's been

carried out in this province time after time after time by

these finance companies on people who are unaware of what is

being done to them until it's too late.

For that reason I urge the House to unanimously endorse this

motion.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of this motion I'm

very, very happy to speak on it too. I think the Member for

Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) has brought out quite a number of

very good points. But let me say that it distresses me when I

think that people get themselves into debts to such an extent

that they have to go to a social worker or someone else to help

them find some way of being able to straighten out their

affairs so that they can once more operate in a viable

fashion.

Loan companies are becoming such lucrative businesses now

and they're doing it absolutely on the backs of the poor. Their

interest charges are far too high and the poor people, because

they have some of the same needs as people in the middle — and

upper-income groups, when they find that they cannot borrow any

more than a small fund, they go to these loan companies. So

actually, the loan

[ Page 308 ]

companies are being predators who are preying on

poverty.

Secondly, you have only to turn on your television

occasionally, you've only to listen to radio from time to time

to hear the advertisements. The ones that come on with the

greatest frequency are the ones that are determined to pressure

the public; their business is growing so rapidly. One group of

such businesses is the large loan companies.

The finance companies that pressure people make it sound

exceedingly attractive. I can easily understand people who are

in debt. They hear that their debts can be consolidated in one

loan — all they have to do is pay so much per month. But they

forget that everytime they do that the interest goes up and up

and up.

This is the sort of thing that a bill of this kind could

prevent to at least some extent for people who really need cash

in a way to be able to finance themselves.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): I rise in

support of this motion. Last spring I was privileged to attend

a conference in Quebec city of Ministers of consumer affairs

from all of the provinces of Canada. All of these Ministers

representing these portfolios complained of the same feature in

the Small Loans Act, Canada and all wanted the $1,500 limit

raised — and raised substantially — for the very reasons that

the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) and the Hon.

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) have stated.

I know they would appreciate the thrust of the unanimous

passage of such a resolution from this House in British

Columbia. It would strengthen their hands and I am sure that

they would follow through. If all 10 provinces can give this

sort of direction to the federal government, we can eliminate

this very grave problem.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I would

like to proceed to the public bills in the hands of private

Members.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 13.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there is not one law reform–minded individual

or law-minded group in the province who hasn't espoused and advocated, almost

to the point of coming to blows with the government of this province, for the

need for, and unqualified democratic right of the citizen to have the same rights

against his government as his government has against him.

I think it is preposterous, Mr. Speaker, to find in a

so-called contemporary, democratic society — and this

socialistic one at that — whereby the government is making

continuous references to the rights of the little man (he needs

some rights and less lip service,) but he is not given that

almost legally-sacred right of access to the courts of our

land. I say that by continuing to deny this right to the

citizen, we have merely done one thing in the Province of

British Columbia: we have replaced the right flank of despotism

by the left cheek of despotism. I move second reading of Bill

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your rulings on

the appropriateness of this bill being in the hands of a

private Member?

MR. SPEAKER: I have to rule upon it, pursuant to my duties,

and…

MR. GARDOM: With reluctance.

MR. SPEAKER: With great reluctance, naturally, since it is

my bill that you have stolen from me. (Laughter.) However,

those were other days, and now I must rule upon it in view of

the fact that it does affect the Crown prerogatives. In that

sense, it is out of order. The decision on this is found in…

HON. MR. HALL: In many places.

MR. SPEAKER: In many places, including the Speakers'

Decisions, volume 3, page 17 and page 19. If the Hon. Member

will peruse those with me, I think he will agree that my

decision is right.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I call then on the next

order of business which shall be Bill 14.

BRITISH COLUMBIA OMBUDSMAN ACT

MR. GARDOM: I would just observe, Mr. Speaker, that the

Speaker, when he was a Member of the House, followed the

suggestion from Mr. George Gregory, and Mr. McFarlane also

utilized it. We are delighted to see that over the years the

Hon. Speaker saw the wisdom of the Liberal ways, and he,

himself, decided it was a most acceptable measure. Would the

Speaker only have more power in the government than he has

today, I am sure that we, perhaps, would have a Crown

proceedings Act in the Province of British Columbia.

Bill 14, Mr. Speaker, deals with the establishment of a

commissioner of grievances. This is another plank in the

programme for protection and assistance of the individual: an

ombudsman to help Joe Q. Citizen wade through the morass of

bureaucratic delay through the webs and the tangles of

regulations and

[ Page

309 ]

red tape. I say, give the people of British Columbia a break

and let them have a trained, staffed, politically-independent

servant. This should be denied no longer.

The British Columbia Human Rights Council has made some very

interesting observations concerning this and they have

circulated statements to all of the Members, drawing to their

attention that three years ago in their conference on an

ombudsman entitled, "Let Justice Be Done", they very, very much

supported this measure. They say that during the three-year

period the population in B.C. has increased, government

departments have multiplied; business and industry have

expanded, and community institutions have become more

elaborate. By virtue of that, as well as other reasons, this

has resulted in a far more complex society with many more

problems evident in all sectors.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the patron of

the British Columbia Human Rights Council is the Hon. Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I would say that he's some saint.

He has just been like Icarus; he's flown too close to the sun,

and he's really flopped on this issue. I move second

reading.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to

section 8, 9 and 10 of the bill and ask you to rule again on

the appropriateness of the bill being in the hands of a private

Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill does require public expenditure in

section 8. That's a departure from the bill which I drafted

when I was a Member. But in view of that circumstance, it has

been ruled on a number of times in this House, and I cannot

depart from the Speakers' Decisions on that point because of

standing orders.

HON. MR. HALL: Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AUDITOR GENERAL

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't possible under the

earlier administration to secure proper and detailed

accountability of this province's revenues and expenditures,

and specifics of its financial direction. Unfortunately, the

present government has not cured the problem but compounded

it.

We find the present government is taxing more. The costs of its operations are

burgeoning and it is bringing in far more open-ended and financially unprojected

programmes then in the history of the province. We find commissions taking tangents

all over the lot. Boards are operating almost totally under regulations. Contracts

have been let without tender. New Democratic Party supporters are slipping into

the public service. Crown Corporations are acting almost wholly within themselves.

These corporate giants are not necessarily going to be "jolly green giants."

They are without any effective legislative check or balance or the availability

of proper scrutiny and public accountability.

I would just like to suggest to the House that there are

more chicken houses than ever before being created here and

that usually brings in more foxes. But we still don't have a

Fido. That's what we need — a good, well-trained and completely

politically-impartial and independent watchdog with power to

shepherd inquiry into the finances of the province and nip in

the bud any abuses of government spending, improper accounting

practices, lack of value, and overall financial

inexpertise.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Bill 16,

and I may be a little quicker on my feet. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16. The same Hon. Member.

PUBLIC SCRUTINY

MR. GARDOM: I'm watching to see if he is going to move, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, years ago, prior to his principles becoming

props for office, there was a Member of this House who had a

little bit of snow on the roof, but he was very young in spirit

and he had a lot of reform in his heart. He was reasonably

muscled for action. He advocated the very legitimate theory

that government shouldn't be done in the dark; everything

should be right smack out open in the sunshine. It was a very

simple and effective premise. It was borrowed from another

jurisdiction, but all of the Members, Mr. Speaker, really

warmed to the suggestion that the sunshine should be let in.

The writers and the editorialists and all of those who live by

the lip very much heralded his stance.

But I can tell you one thing, the warmth from such esteem

must have melted him, because, much like the water did in the

wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz , the great stance of this

former reformer apparently has disappeared. He hasn't moved an

inch since he got into the driver's seat.

As I said before, we have a government more in the increase

in the field of regulation, in the field of control, and in

bureaucratizing.

But still we find government done in the dark. Still we find

boards and commissions and tribunals being permitted to

secretly meet and consult, and secretly report and investigate.

Now first of all we had proposed in this House, Mr. Speaker,

the sunshine law. Then in the spring session we had the

sunshine law revisited, and I see that we have today, under

Bill 16, the sunshine law again revisited.

[ Page 310 ]

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, in the very unlikely event that this

bill is not successful today, that we shall have to have the

sunshine law resuscitated once more in the future.

HON. MR. HALL: As took place in the fall session, the Member

was given assurances that the government is looking at this

kind of attitude — the thrust of the principle of the bill.

Indeed I think that many of the actions of the government have

gone a long way towards meeting the paragraph that starts off

the bill. However, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is

working diligently on this.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next

sitting of the house.

Motion approved.

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

GUARANTEED

MINIMUM INCOME PLAN

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, in giving the purport of Bill 17,

Guaranteed Minimum Income Plan , this Act would amend the

Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act in order to provide a

safeguard for thousands upon thousands of British Columbia

pensioners who did not receive the benefit of increases for the

old-age security supplement paid by the federal government.

The effect of not passing this federal supplement along to

the pensioners of British Columbia resulted in over 10,000

pensioners being stripped from the Mincome rolls after the

previous, approximately $17 increase granted last year — obscured as it was in the provincial Treasury.

This amendment would ensure protection for the British

Columbia residents under Mincome by making it an obligation of

the provincial government to have any federal increases

reflected immediately in an increase in the Mincome payments to

British Columbia pensioners. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is only

fair.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on the

section

2, which puts an impost on the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: I note that this was ruled out of order on the

same grounds last session, as found in the Journals , page 41,

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, in giving the purport of Bill 18,

Guaranteed Income Act , once again we offer this Act to this

House. The Social Credit government was the first government in

Canada to endorse the principle of guaranteed income plans for

all Canadians. Indeed, at successive federal-provincial

conferences this idea was urged upon the Government of

Canada.

In presenting this bill again, Members of the House will

recognize that the inflationary spiral has been such that the

previous floor set on the guaranteed income in the bill

presented this spring has risen to reflect an 8 per cent

increase in the cost of living index. With respect to the

senior citizens over 65, to meet the impact of the inflation

would now require an 8 per cent increase over the $225

originally presented with the bill last spring. This would

bring the guaranteed income proposal, with respect to senior

citizens, to $243 — reflecting the cost of living index between

June of 1972 and June of 1973.

Further, since that time, particularly in the area of food,

shelter and clothing, further increases have taken place and it

is now proposed to lift, then, under this bill the guaranteed

income support for those persons over age 65 to $250 per

month.

Members will recognize as well that the amendment proposed

section 4 made it mandatory for the Lieutenant-Governor in

council to increase the ceiling amount specified in the statute

to reflect growth in the gross national product as applicable

to British Columbia, and to reflect as well any increase in the

food, shelter and clothing components associated with the cost

of living index as determined by Statistics Canada.

Surely it is incumbent upon this Legislature to handle the

inflation question in a straightforward way, eliminating all

the red tape associated with Mincome, discharging our

responsibilities to ensure that the inflationary tactics of the

government do not cause harm to fall upon those who cannot meet

the problems of inflation by themselves.

I move the second reading, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of

order to ask you to rule on this bill in the hands of a private

Member. Normally we say it would provide an impost on the

Crown. The trouble is, when I look at

section 2, I see that a

family unit consisting of an individual and spouse would only

get $4,320; we're already giving him $4,800. So maybe it's less

than an impost on the Crown.

However, I do think it's out of order in the hands of a

private Member.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it purports to place an impost on the

Crown other than the present Act — or on the people.

[ Page 311 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Maybe on the people.

MR. SPEAKER: I had better rule this out of order in view of

the fact that in several sections it does impose a burden on

the people and an impost, contrary to standing order 67.

HON. MR. HALL: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX ACT

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the mirth of the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), particularly on such a

serious matter. However that's what we can expect from that

side of the House.

In giving the purport of Bill 19,

An Act to Amend the Income

Tax Act , Mr. Speaker, I say that there is no good reason why

the owners of homes should not have available to them the same

income tax provision as those that can use commercial-industrial

rental costs as an offset against income tax or

corporation tax.

There's no good reason either why the provincial government

cannot enter into an agreement with the federal government

under the Income Tax Act to permit the British Columbia

agreement to contain a clause which would bring relief from the

provincial income tax to residents of British Columbia by

permitting them to exempt property taxation and interest

payments on mortgages for the purpose of calculating their

income tax.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the province could take the initiative

here and provide a welcome, further-forward initiative towards

the encouragement of owner/occupier of a residential dwelling.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will continue to

emphasize home ownership rather than the provision of housing

owned by the state and rented or leased to an individual.

Perhaps the greatest foundation upon which our individual

freedom rests is the feeling of security which comes in

relation to the state when the individual owns his own home.

This idea has been expressed throughout centuries of common law

in the idea that man's home is his castle, and was his

guarantee against first the lords of the feudal England and now

the often overpowering persons of the modern industrial estate.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HALL: For the same reason, Mr. Speaker, I think

this bill is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill purports to interfere with the

revenues of the Crown and, by exempting certain persons, should

that be achieved under the Act proposed, would place a further burden upon other

citizens without the sanction of a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. In view of that circumstance I must, under

standing order 67, rule it out of order.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the House now

to proceed to Public Bills and Orders?

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in asking leave of the House to

return to motions there was no clear reason why we should

finish with two motions still on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: We'd have to obtain leave at this stage of the

House since we passed a motion, if I recall correctly, moving

on to bills. We've certainly got leave of the House to move on

to bills. We'd have to have leave again.

MR. WALLACE: I was trying to speak on a point of order

before the vote was taken.

HON. MR. HALL: I wonder if the Member would accept my

assurance that we'll be having more private Members' days. The

motion has not been on the paper very long. I don't think many

Members have had an opportunity to judge its full worth.

Indeed, it was because of the presence of the motion before

yours that I stopped to allow all Members to have sufficient

time to individually look at it and caucus the motion.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the point is that there is

some urgency, and perhaps the Minister would comment. There's

some reasonable degree of urgency attached to discussion of the

Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke'

s) motion, No. 6, (See

appendix) and it would seem to me, in the light of time

considerations and the element of urgency that we should

consider it now.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, in view of the circumstances, I'd have

to have the unanimous leave of the House, since we've departed

from that order of business. I'll ask on behalf of the Member:

shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I've no wish to

impede the progress of the House at all — other than that I

think we should give lots of these things full consideration. I

therefore call motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, motion 6 is put

[ Page 312 ]

to the House at this time merely to change the wording of

the motion that was passed at the last session of the

legislature in order to enable the committee to do their work.

It was the unanimous position of all those people of the

Vietnam committee that we could not work with the motion worded

as it was. And therefore I'm putting this now and with an

assurance that there'll be a report from the committee in the

very near future.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the attitude of the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the manner in which he

responded to my request.

The House should realize that the committee deliberating on

the proposal to provide $2.25 million to help the children of

Vietnam was, as indeed the House was, very eager and unanimous

to proceed with the implementation of some programme which

would meet the terms of the resolution. And I should say, Mr.

Speaker, that this committee has laboured on at least four

occasions for many hours listening to people who have been in

Vietnam and who have had a considerable degree of experience,

not only in providing help to that area but in the whole field

of providing help in areas where there has been warfare or

disasters all over the world.

The committee soon discovered in its deliberations that the

original motion referred rather specifically to the building of

facilities. In the evidence that came before the committee, our

original impression, when the motion was passed in this House,

was that in fact warfare had come to an end in Vietnam and that

a truce had been reached. It was soon brought to our attention

that the situation was very unstable and that indeed a great

deal of disruption and destruction was continuing in that

country. For this reason, initially, we felt we would not be

meeting the responsibility of this House or the interests of

the taxpayers of British Columbia by providing money for

buildings which might be no sooner constructed than blown up

into little pieces. So that the emphasis on the building of

facilities created something of a difficulty in our early

deliberations.

Beyond that, we proceeded to hear evidence, as I say, from

various people who were well acquainted with the Vietnam

situation, who pointed out to us the difficulty I guess which

foreign aid of any kind has encountered from the first year it

started. That difficulty was in getting assurances that the

money spent would in fact reach the recipients for whom it was

intended.

The corruption in Vietnam, and particularly the corruption of the South Vietnamese

government under the presidency of President Thieu, is something of which no

objective individual could be very proud. The press reports as recently as September

14 show that the government in South Vietnam is very corrupt but that President

Thieu is not about to change his ways. For this reason, once again, this all-party

committee — and I'd like to emphasize that this all-party committee worked on

a non-partisan basis as well as any of the other all-party committees to which

credit has been paid — tried to find a way of implementing what this House had

unanimously sought to implement for the children of Vietnam.

We had two very substantial problems: the fact that the

situation was not a peaceful one, despite the supposed truce;

and secondly, the corruption in the country is of such

dimensions apparently that we would have considerable

difficulty finding means of getting the help to the

children.

We also had to decide, and I think we decided wisely, that

we were dealing with three separate areas, the north, the south

and the provisional revolutionary government, and that it would

be only reasonable that we try to ensure that help reached all

three segments of that country.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to stop the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay, but the committee has not completed its

deliberations. We have had one in camera session and I expect

that there will be further meetings. I'm afraid that his

remarks to this House are extending beyond those which one

would expect in the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a committee sitting on this

question at the present time, I would recommend to the Hon.

Members that the debate on this question be adjourned if it

bears upon…

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I'm concerned also. May I point out while

we're on the point of order, that the resolution itself is

somewhat vague in that it does not later tie down for anyone,

in this House or out of it, what is meant by "personnel and/or

materiel as indicated by the policy developed by a special

committee of British Columbia legislators and representatives

of interest groups, such as the Red Cross."

The wording of this is rather vague and there's no way of

identifying it from the resolution, such as if it said, "policy

tabled in this House on a certain date," or in some way

identified it for the purposes of the House and the debate of

this resolution. Would the

[ Page 313 ]

Hon. Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), on the point of order,

indicate if this is clear?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speake r, on the point of order,

and of course not having that clarity of legal mind, it seems

to me that we're tied in with the $2.25 million; I think that

pretty well sums it up. But at the same time, you don't want to

be tied up to that amount. You have no alternative but to not

exceed that amount but maybe we don't want to go that high. And

so it's up to this committee to supervise very carefully the

expenditure of those moneys. That really is the intent.

Now, it's also up to the committee to come back to the House

and report, which is what they'll do of course. There will be

an interim report shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not an official committee of the House

and there are no terms of reference from this House to any

special committee that I know of in our votes and proceedings.

What I'm getting at is that the resolution in its present form

is, in my respectful view, necessary of some amendment to avoid

the irregularity of the motion in its present form. I'm not

referring to the amount of up to $2.25 million, but how the

identification is made in the resolution in the words, "by the

policy developed by a special committee." We have no knowledge

in this House of any such special committee, nor is it

incorporated in our terms of reference. In those circumstances,

the resolution itself might be ruled out of order as too

vague.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it

solve the problem if the debate were adjourned, contingent upon

this committee bringing in a report? I respect the Hon. Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) correcting me if I

was in error. I was not attempting to debate the merits of the

resolution so much as to point out why in fact the committee

has not reported. If this is the only way to solve this dilemma — if you would guide us, Mr. Speaker — perhaps a motion to

adjourn, assuming that we will then bring a report in which

will explain the reason why we had not reported sooner. So I

move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I was sort of dumbfounded in listening to the Member

for Vancouver–Howe Sound state that this committee had had in camera meetings

when, as you pointed out, this House has no record of such a committee. I'd

like the Member to advise the House when the committee was formed, by what authority

they're meeting in camera, and…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it deals with the point before

us. I know of no committee of the House that is dealing with

anything of which we're seized. Therefore, that is not the

point of order. The motion is to adjourn this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Motion 7. (See appendix.)

MR. WALLACE: This motion is put forward for one very simple

reason and that is to have the various details clearly made

public as to the present planning of the government regarding a

new passenger ferry which will sail in the Strait of

Georgia.

I might preface these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying the

Minister has explained to me privately some of the factors that

have led to a degree of misunderstanding, and I appreciate that

I was afforded that courtesy. But the private discussion did

not in any way change the issue, nor in my opinion does it

change the need for this motion to be debated and passed.

The information which became available regarding the

proposed new ferry was such as to indicate that there would be

a reduction in the lifesaving equipment on the new ferry. The

details I was able to find out on the existing ferries showed

that, on an average, there are 1,250 people on the ferry,

including crew, and that there is lifesaving capacity for that

number.

The information that I was able to find on the design for

the new ferry was to the effect that there would be a maximum

complement of 1,500 people with a lifesaving capacity of 1,106.

The first impression, or, at least, the evidence as figures

show it, means that there are some 400 persons on board that

ship for whom there would be no lifesaving equipment.

The other discussion that has taken place in the oral

question period regarding this matter of the proposed new ferry

touched upon other matters which are perfectly valid. The

answers, which the Minister gave clearly and in good faith,

were to the effect that the ship would have a double-bottomed

hull and would be of a three-compartment design and would have

several other features which he said would give the ship great

safety.

In our private conversation the Minister pointed out that

that is the whole concept: that the ship will be built in such

a safe manner that there will never be a need for lifesaving

equipment of the amount existing on previous vessels.

As I mentioned yesterday, the Titanic was supposed to be the

safest ship ever created by man, yet they needed all the

lifeboats on the maiden

[ Page 314 ]

voyage. The Andrea Doria was a very large vessel that was

supposed to be unsinkable. In a lesser sense we have been told

that with proper radar and the navigation aids of the modern

world we shouldn't have collisions; yet two or three days ago

we had two freighters colliding. I won't go into all these

details; we all know of the disaster.

Therefore, the reason for this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to

ask the government to reveal to the public…and the

government's attitude may well prove to be founded on common

sense and good advice. But, unfortunately, I feel that judgment

should be made beyond just the confines of the B.C. Ferry

Authority.

The concept that a ship can be built so safe — and this is

just talking about ship's safety; I'm not talking about human

error — that the day will never come when you don't have to get

everybody off that ship, I think, is a very serious and

potentially dangerous concept.

The rationale, which the Minister explained, was that the

ship is only sailing between the Island and the mainland and

that it is never far from assistance by other vessels and can

summon assistance, as indeed happened when the Russian

freighter rammed the ferry in the Active Pass area.

Nevertheless, I think the public of British Columbia, along

with visitors and tourists to this province will, in fact, be

sailing on a ferry ship on which there will not be adequate

lifesaving equipment to get all the people off that ship if

there were some sudden disaster — by something of the order of

400 people.

The other point — and I'm sorry that the Minister and I got

rather angry